Posted By David Rothkopf Share

The State of the Union Address has, in keeping with all things American, gone all steroidal on us. In what used to be a humble effort to meet  a Constitutional requirement that was once fulfilled with a message from George Washington that was not much longer than this post, we now find an extravaganza with national television coverage, pundits commenting on the reaction of pundits, an official opposition response, its own logo and theme music on the networks, and a host of set pieces (like the First Lady's box filled with notable Americans with heart-warming stories -- this year, that's means heroes and victims of the Tucson shooting.) It's got just enough calculated drama and just as little connection to the day-to-day life of average citizens to actually be a reality show. The only problem is there is not enough drinking. (But we will take care of that shortly.)

In fact, typically, the State of the Union Address is the political equivalent of the Super Bowl: A mid-winter ritual that combines hype, meaninglessness and boredom in equal parts. If only the president's address had good advertisements to liven up the action ... but maybe next year... (I'd love to see the Budweiser Clydesdale's take on health care reform.)

To help alleviate this, as a public service, let me offer the following score sheet. Simply watch (or listen to) the address and score per the instructions. Then see the key below to interpret the speech. The objective is to help determine whether the speech rises to the level of something actually newsworthy (not to mention worthy of the time of the president, his cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the news media and, most important of all, viewing audiences across America.) The scoring approach is simple: the president gets points for actually rising to the potential of the occasion and  has them deducted for pandering, filling time, engaging in empty rhetoric, or worse. The score sheet is broken into several categories corresponding to different dimensions of the speech.

Leadership

  • Any mention that balancing the budget involves both real spending cuts and real tax increases together, add 5 points.
  • Any mention that responsibility for U.S. competitiveness lies primarily with private citizens and private sector but that government has an essential central role to play, add 5 points.
  • Any mention that he has actually made mistakes during his first two years in office, add 5 points. Enumeration of such mistakes with conclusions as to how he will do better, 1 point each.
  • Listing more than 3 possible mistakes: start deducting 5 points for each. There is such a thing as too much honesty in one of these speeches.
  • Any pandering or overplaying the Tucson tragedy card beyond dignified references to those in the box with his wife, deduct 5 points.
  • Every reference to competitiveness that uses China as a foil and suggests the reason we must grow is to beat them or the way we must grow is to emulate them, deduct 5 points.

Foreign Policy

  • For any mention of materially cutting defense budgets, add 5 points.
  • For any mention of meeting or beating withdrawal deadlines from Afghanistan, add 5 points.
  • For any mention getting tough with either side of the Israeli-Palestinian issue add 2.5 points. Both sides: 5 points. Introduction of any new idea that has not been mentioned in a previous State of the Union, 10 points.
  • For any mention of committing to pass a trade measure, add 1 point. For Korea, Colombia, Panama, the Doha Round and any other (Trans-Pacific Partnership, etc.) all together: 5 points.
  • For any statement offering specific sanctions against China for currency manipulation, IP policies, or unfair trade practices: 5 points.
  • Any reference to North Korean Supreme Leader Kim's sisters Kourtney and Khloe, deduct 5 points. Any implication that our policies in North Korea are actually working in any meaningful way, also deduct 5 points.
  • Failure to claim credit for real progress on Russia with new Start treaty, withdrawal from Iraq, international economic coordination efforts that forestalled global market turmoil, even progress with Iran delaying their nuclear program, also deduct 5 points for each.
  • Failure to acknowledge the precarious nature of the Eurozone and other factors that may threaten global recovery, deduct 5 points.
  • Failure to address the increasingly complicated nature of the terrorist threat, deduct 5 points. Over-playing the 10th anniversary of 9/11: deduct an additional 5 points.

Domestic Policy:

  • For any mention of material cuts to entitlement programs: 5 points.
  • For any mention of supporting broadly the recommendation of the deficit commission: 5 points.
  • For any mention of explanation of difference between spending and investment and any more detailed program for investments in infrastructure: 5 points.
  • For any mention of need to actually increase revenues to help balance the budget (that's tax increases of one sort or another): 5 points.
  • For any serious effort to reduce regulations impeding investment in creating jobs here in the U.S.: 5 points.
  • For every time the president mentions a spending program without mentioning a way to pay for it: deduct 5 points.
  • For every time the president mentions a spending cut under $10 billion as being material or implies the same: deduct 5 points.
  • For every time the president implies that the recovery on Wall Street or the restoration of GDP growth is the same as a recovery for most Americans: deduct 5 points.
  • If the president fails to mention the municipal and state financial crisis and at least one concrete way of dealing with it (like bankruptcy-like provisions for the states), deduct 5 points.
  • If the president talks about strengthening education without any reference to a national curriculum, ending teacher tenure/focusing on merit promotions, using existing technologies to enhance teacher efficiency, or materially raising standards, deduct 5 points.

Politics:

  • For every mention of every specific idea designed to create jobs: 1 point. (See below. This could be a very high number.)
  • For every mention of every specific idea designed to enhance U.S. competitiveness: 1 point.
  • For every mention of civility: 1 point. (Also see below. Should also be a high number.)
  • For every singling out of a good idea from the Republican side of the house: add 5 points.
  • If he delivers the speech well enough to produce post-speech gushing from MSNBC: 0 points. Post-speech rants from Fox: 0 points. Post-speech gushing from Fox: 10 points. Mid-speech weeping by John Boehner: 10 points.
  • Every time he goads or bashes the opposition in a visible way that undercuts the civility message: deduct 5 points.
  • Every time he glares at Samuel Alito: deduct 5 points.
  • If he announces appointment of non-Chicago resident Rahm Emanuel as Civility Czar: deduct 10 points.

Intangibles:

  • Every minute the speech is under 45 minutes, add 1 point.
  • Every minute the speech is over 45 minutes, deduct 1 point.
  • Every joke that produces bi-partisan laughter, add 5 points.
  • Every comment that produces an outburst from an out-of-control Republican House member, add 5 points.
  • Every minute over 2 that it takes him to make his way through the crowd to the podium, deduct 1 point. (Seriously, the only thing distinguishing this entrance from the Academy Awards red carpet is the absence of Ryan Seacrest and Joan Rivers. Inviting either of them to a future State of the Union: add 10 points.)

The scoring key is:
50 points or more:
Rooseveltian (pick your favorite Roosevelt)
40-49 points: Reaganesque (or Truman-esque, you pick)
30-39 points: Kennedy-esque (pick your favorite Kennedy)
20-29 points: Eisenhower-esque (What he lacked in style he made up for in substance)
10-19 points:
Clinton-esque  (I'd rate him higher but I served then...don't want to appear biased)
0-9 points:
Bush 41-esque (He was a better president than his speeches)
-1-10 points: Carter-esque or Ford-esque (In the interest of bi-partisanship)
-11-20 points:
Bush 43-esque (He was not as good as his speeches)
-21-30 points:
Nixonian  (It's complicated...)
-31-40 points: James Buchanan-esque
Below -40 points:
Introducing your next president, Mitt Romney    

If this doesn't work, try the State of the Union drinking game. This year's key word is: civility. Any use of this word, a variant of it, or concepts associated with it, and you take a drink. Any bi-partisan applause, you take a drink. Any breakdowns in civility or displays of partisanship, you take two drinks. I say you're unconscious even before those Americans who pass out due to boredom. However, if you seek an even quicker buzz, switch to the Advanced SOTU Drinking program where you can take a drink every time the words job or any employment related term or concept is mentioned. Don't hesitate to share your colorful drinking game stories.

TIM SLOAN/AFP/Getty Images

 

REBELLE

2:24 AM ET

January 25, 2011

STUA

Pass the jagger bombs. That's the only way I can stomach Obama telling me he's concerned about my middle class family because his actions scream he doesn't give a damn!

 

ZATHRAS

3:49 AM ET

January 25, 2011

This is way too much work

Like a lot of David Rothkopf's posts, this post takes almost as much effort to get through as a typical State of the Union address. I don't know why he doesn't at least try to get himself an editor.

From what I'm hearing, this year's SoTU drinking game should be based on the word "competitiveness."

 

DAN KERVICK

5:12 AM ET

January 25, 2011

Competitiveness

Yes, I think Obama is going to unveil his plan for helping American corporations compete both with foreign corporations and American workers.

 

X.WOLFMAN

1:47 PM ET

January 25, 2011

Wonderful

After registering here, and after a lot of lookups on bloggers and articles, I chose to read this one 1st. And I bet - one of the most well written ones. Too good sir. Liked your style of writing a lot.

~J~

 

JIMO

7:41 PM ET

January 25, 2011

political values

I'm a bit more than half way through your Superclass book and I think it provides a valuable perspective from a quasi insider. You present pretty damning evidence that the world is in fact run by just a few thousand at great cost to democracy. The book is presented in a similar manner as the great social critic C. Wright Mills' The Power Elite and much of your conclusions are down the same lines as his. (Keep in mind I haven't finished the book yet.)

So, I looked you up and found this blog. I'm forced to admit that I'm disappointed to see your political positions are in the same place as such other prominent centrist democrats as Robert Rubin. Spokesmen for this group tend to be very wealthy insiders and are often associated with Wall Street. They can occasionally sound populist but the reality is that they refuse to offer anything but cliches or completely irrelevant tweaks. Although far more benign than those of the extreme right, they may actually hurt the cause of the majority / democracy more since the views are more subtle and not as obviously beneficial to a particular class. The views can sound reasonable and moderate but the reality is that they perpetuate a system in which power and wealth is controlled by very very people.

The game of this post is a good example. Many of the 5 pointers do direct harm to the majority population and I see nothing that would directly reduce the power of concentrated wealth. Like all policies, one can argue that they indirectly will help the majority but that's a real stretch. Here's some of the undemocratic 5 pointers: reducing public spending, cutting "entitlements" (i.e. old age security and health care), support for the view that corporate competitiveness should be the key driver, promotion of "free" trade, an attachment to eliminating the "deficit" (which I argue is a completely false concern in a fiat currency regime), reducing business regulation, a high regard for "bipartisanship" with a party so clearly representing nothing but wealth, and no mention of sharp increases in progressive income taxes.

I find the inconsistency between your book which raises concerns right out of the pages of C. Wright Mills and even Karl Marx and your real world views very striking.

Jim
http://commentsongpe.wordpress.com

 

WANDERLUST

11:05 PM ET

January 25, 2011

Drinking Game

After reading your rules, it goes against my better judgement to use vodka as the staple drink of this game, I will instead do the smart thing and grab beer. Then, maybe later on, I'll switch to vodka.

Also, I feel like the post-speech commentaries can also be made into drinking games fairly easily.

 

David Rothkopf is the CEO and Editor-at-Large of Foreign Policy. His new book, "Power, Inc.: The Epic Rivalry Between Big Business and Government and the Reckoning that Lies Ahead" is due out from Farrar, Straus & Giroux on March 1.

Read More