Free Markets, Free People

A Smarter Response to the State of the Union Address

[Note: You might have already seen this at The Next Right or mentioned at Politico.  I'm cross-posting here for more feedback and in the hope you'll help spread the word.]

After the election, I saw several Republicans discussing who should deliver the SOTU response speech.

No one should.

First, any speech is bound to suffer by comparison to a speech before a joint session of Congress, with the Supreme Court in attendance.  Republicans tried to capture some of the same spirit by having Bob McDonnell speak before a small crowd of supporters in the Virginia House of Delegates chamber, but if you can’t match the pomp and grandeur of the president, try to avoid a direct comparison.

Not only is the venue working against you, but the president is a nationally-elected official; no member of the opposition can have the same stature.  Appearing to try to match the president’s status just plays to his strengths.

And finally, a speech, to be delivered immediately after the president’s carefully-planned opening move, puts the responder at a disadvantage.  Since the response speech is written without knowing exactly what the president is going to say, what is supposed to be a criticism of the president’s speech or agenda is relayed in vague terms, not pointed responses.  A prepared speech can only talk past the president, appearing deaf to what the president just said in the marquee event.

This precious free airtime could be spent dismantling the president’s argument, then pivoting to counterattack and providing alternatives.

How can the opposition do this?

Take advantage of the fact that they have fewer restraints.

First, make it a table discussion with more than one responder.  As a suggestion, include at least one governor to remind the audience that there are independent sources of authority, laboratories of policy that should retain their power to handle local problems (a big-city mayor could also do), and also include a legislator representing the opposition in Congress to directly address the president’s agenda on the federal level.

This also takes the pressure off of any one person to speak for the party, and signals that the opposition is having a frank conversation, not speaking press-release style through the great filter of lawyers and focus-group-tested language.  Make good use of stars like Paul Ryan and Chris Christie who have shown they’re champs at off-the-cuff communication and aren’t afraid to take on big issues.  Bobby Jindal would have been far better suited to this than talking into a camera solo.

Second, use resources the president doesn’t have.  The president is limited by the tradition of giving his speech in the chamber of the House of Representatives, which only affords him a microphone, a teleprompter and an audience.  Instead of trying to beat the president at his own game, use a modern-looking studio, where the responders can make use of supporting staff and visual aids like charts and video.

And this extra content should come from a well-coordinated rapid-response team who provide ammunition for the response.

  • The model for responding to a speech in progress is liveblogging.  Certain people, by some mix of expertise, encyclopedic memory and quick wit, have proven they can tear apart a carefully-crafted speech in real time.  Identify these people—bloggers, political operatives, think-tankers—and (with their advance permission) borrow their best arguments and lines.
  • A media team would be responsible for matching the president’s remarks to earlier video and quotes from the president, his advisers and top congressional allies that contradicted the president’s SOTU message.  Anyone with a good memory and a well-ordered catalogue of video and/or transcripts can do this.  What could be more damaging than showing that the speech just delivered contained flip-flops?
  • To respond to specific policy proposals and claims, have a team of stat junkies, economists and others who can call up relevant charts and other visuals to help the responders on-screen.

This kind of rapid counter-offensive would be much more entertaining than the president’s exhausting, conventional address, giving viewers a good reason to stick around afterward.  And it would be much more effective than current efforts like sending out fact-check emails and post-speech press releases, the contents of which are read by only a tiny minority of people who saw the speech.

Don’t play to the president’s strengths. Use your own, leveraging all the media available to you that the president doesn’t have.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

5 Responses to A Smarter Response to the State of the Union Address

  • It’s a pretty smart idea in theory, but here’s the fly in the buttermilk – does anyone even pay attention to those rebuttals?

    • Some people do pay attention, and I think even we all dread it.

      But if someone announced that this year the rebuttal would be more combative and substantive, with some of the opposition’s top communicators (Christie in particular, since his operation has been so good at showing his confrontations on YouTube), I think they’d hold on to much more of the audience than usual, and if it was good enough you might even see clips from the response become popular on the web.  Do it right the first time, and word will spread.

      And thanks for the compliment.

      • Yes, the key would be to make it more feisty and fun. Make it like those NFL half-time shows. Make sure Christie can make large yellow circles on the graphics…LOL. I like the idea, I’m just wondering if it could spin out of control…then again, that would be fun too!

  • It is a good idea, and I’d like to see it.
    The problem I can foresee is that by having a panel of contributors increases the odds that someone may go off-script and say something candid.
    I can imagine a Chris Christie type blurting out “we should cut medicare or SS.”  A tag line that would then be used to hammer the GOP.  Headlines reading: “GOP to Obama, cut medicare and Social Security.”
    Much too risky for the powers that be.
     
    It’s a good idea – but it won’t happen.  And I like the train of thought.
     
    Cheers.