Source: www.cnn.com
by Laura Lai/Essay
The picture with Nancy Pelosi – the Chair of the U.S. House of Representatives – ripping the ‘State of the Union Address’ of the U.S. President was all over the news. I am one of those surprised by this picture, because at the beginning Nancy Pelosi wanted to shake hands with the President, then applauded him, and then ripped up his speech. All these in approx. two hours. Afterwards, she explained her last gesture as follows:
‘It was the courteous thing to do, considering the alternatives’. (CNN)
But the word ‘courteous’ is explained by the Oxford Dictionary as ‘polite, respectful, or considerate in manner.’ At this point, I am not sure I understand her explanation either, because it does not seem like a ‘courteous’ thing to do with a ‘State of the Union Address’. Furthermore, the fact that these two powerful characters of the U.S. domestic politics have different views on the impeachment procedure is not enough as justification for tearing a ‘State of the Union Address: The state of the Union is one thing and the state of its President is another thing. I had a look at the speech transcript, in order to identify those elements that could have annoyed Nancy Pelosi to such an extent that she tear the speech up.
According to the U.S. Constitution (Art. 2, paragraph 3), the U.S. President must inform the Congress about the state of the union and must recommend the Congress to approve those legislative measures that the President considers necessary. In 2020, the State of the Union was addressed on February 4th.
It starts with an overall summary pointing then what concretely changed: the economic decay is over, the country is not used by other countries in an unfair way, the political promises are kept, etc. Technically, the speech is based on descriptions and on comparing and contrasting. The President says that the economy goes well given the lately economic measures (ex. tax cuts, fair and reciprocal trade agreements, etc.), and by giving even more concrete examples very well structured on gender (women unemployment), age (youth unemployment), race (African-American, Latin-American, Asian-American unemployment), professional category (veterans), and on educational level (with or without high school diploma).
The outcome, the vision of his Administration and the future work follow the structure: from domestic results, to external politics (Venezuela and the Middle East), and from here to air (Air Force) and to the space (Space Force). Then the speech returns to policies: the environmental policy (One Trillion Trees Initiative), the military and defense. By mentioning the killing of the Al-Bagdhadi – the President points his Administration’s fight against terrorists – which is more concrete and more pragmatic oriented – and not against terror – that is quite an abstract, if not slightly ambiguous concept.
Furthermore, from a structural point of view, the speech is also based on comparing/contrasting. While exposing his achievements as head of government and that of his administration, he compares with the previous heads of government and their administrations’ achievements (ex. ‘But unlike so many who came before me, I keep my promises’, ‘But as we work to improve Americans’ healthcare, there are those who want to take away your healthcare, take away your doctor, and abolish private insurance entirely’, etc.).
This explains the use of the first person singular and plural: ‘I made a promise’, ‘I keep my promises’, ‘I signed nine pieces of legislation on human trafficking’, or ‘we have created over half a million new manufacturing jobs’, etc. Let us not forget that ‘Trump Administration’ implies also the institution of the First Lady. And Donald Trump does not omit mentioning the contribution of ‘our magnificent First Lady’ through her ‘Be Best’ initiative.
Donald Trump himself is in front of the U.S. Congress, in order to inform – as the Constitution requires – and he uses these humble words: ‘I am thrilled to report to you …’. And as the Constitution requires, he also advices the Congress to approve certain pieces of legislation that he thinks necessary (ex. ‘We must also rebuild America’s infrastructure. I ask you to pass Senator Barrasso’s highway bill — to invest in new roads, bridges, and tunnels across our land.’).
From the wording point of view, the speech uses as a constant reference point ‘since my election’ or ‘three years ago’. And the wording generally translates the statistics: ‘the highest level ever recorded’, ‘transcending anything anyone believed possible’, ‘consumer confidence has reached amazing new heights’, ‘it’s all working’, etc.
It is possible that the thing that was not working was exactly the impeachment procedure. This was already cut off my list of possible justifications for ripping off the speech of the ‘State of the Union’. So, what else could have been? The constant comparing of this Trump Administration to the achievements of the previous administrations, which happened to be Democrat ones, as Nancy Pelosi is? This speech does not ostentatiously insist on comparison, but where the text allows, in the way the text flows, here and there the comparison appears. Besides, the results are really sensational. The President of the United States makes the address and presents his achievements as head of government and of his cabinet. Why should not the Administration enjoy the beautiful words coming from the President? These hypotheses do not explain the tearing. But what exactly did Nancy Pelosi ripped up?
‘The State of the Union Address’ is not a presidential arrogance to come in front of the Congress and praise himself with his achievements. The achievements happen to be great and, statistically speaking, some of them greater than ever. The U.S. President Donald Trump fulfilled a Constitutional obligation ‘to inform and to recommend’ the Congress on the state of the union. In a recent interview, the Vice-President Mike Pence said that he had the impression that Nancy Pelosi is tearing the Constitution. I would not go as far as that, because the State of the Union is not the Constitution, but a constitutional requirement, but I agree with what he meant: despite the animosities between Trump and Pelosi, the ‘State of the Union Address’ is not a whatever Trump speech campaign, to which one may react the way s/he wants and tear the speech.
Making a historical and/or an international comparison, the ‘State of the Union Address’ is comparable to the Queen’s speech in the UK Parliament. It is one thing to tear up such a Queen speech and another thing to rip a Queen’s report on the Swan Upping, in which one may think that she exaggerated with the Swans’ number.
The explanation for the ripping up of the U.S. President’s speech addressing the ‘State of the Union’ does not lay in either the structure, or the wording. Neither in Nancy Pelosi’s own explanation. Another question arises now: If the roles were reversed and the U.S. President Donald Trump was ripping off the speech of the House of Representatives’ Chair, would the Congress have gone for a third impeachment procedure? Thanks God that
‘[o]ur spirit is still young; the sun is still rising; God’s grace is still shining; and my fellow Americans, the best is yet to come! (…) God bless America!’ (‘The State of the Union Address, 2020)
No comments:
Post a Comment