Boycotting the SOTU would make Trump ‘the story’
No one notices when Democrats obey the “rules.”
Here’s what I wish – that the president would deliver his annual State of the Union address to a half-empty chamber. I wish that Donald Trump would be denied the opportunity to insult Democrats to their faces. I wish that Chief Justice John Roberts would see, as he’s being savaged for overruling Trump’s tariffs, that no one is going to share in his humiliation.
Obviously, I’m not going to get what I wish for. Most of the Democrats are going to attend tonight’s speech. Apparently, they feel bound by a set of “rules” that a criminal president set fire to long ago. That his net approval rating among indie voters is -47 percent isn't reason to skip it. It’s the reason to go. Most of them still believe in getting credit for “good behavior.”
Courtesy of CNN and Aaron Rupar.
The SOTU used to be a meaningful and important event. It used to be an opportunity, under the guise of informing the Congress of the state of the union, for a president to move public opinion in the direction of his policy preferences. It used to be the bully pulpit at its peak.
That hasn't been the case for a long time, but most Democrats still believe in its power to persuade. By attending, they hope the public – especially indie voters – see the contrast between their actions and Trump’s, and as a result, move in their direction. In reality, no one will notice, because everyone will have forgotten by Thursday there was a speech at all.
When it comes to deciding whether to attend, I would prefer the Democrats concentrate on their own people – not on indie voters, not on “persuadable” Republicans. They should focus on rank-and-file Democrats who may be watching the address and searching for inspiration in their resistance to the regime. Inspiration does not come from sitting quietly and obeying the “rules.” No one notices compliance. To inspire, first you have to get attention.
That’s the problem for some Democrats. Most of them seem to believe getting attention is too risky. Better to let an unpopular president be “the story” and allow voters to assume Democrats are better by tacit comparison. Delaware Congresswoman Sarah McBride said it was a mistake last year when Texas Congressman Al Green raised hell, leading to his ejection.
“I don’t think what happened last year was particularly helpful,” she told NOTUS. “It made us the story. I don’t think it’s helpful for us to make ourselves, and any particular gesture, the story. I think this president’s slow undoing. I think this president’s unhinged tirades. I think this president’s unpopular policies should be the story, not gestures from our side.”
Courtesy of NOTUS.
I doubt many cared about Green's "gestures."
By the next day, some other outrage by the president dominated the headlines. The people most affected by his hell-raising were rank-and-file Democrats. In those dark days after Trump’s inaugural, he seemed like the only Democrat who was willing to stand up to him. If popular resistance is a journey of a thousand steps, the first steps were Al Green’s.
I’m not buying the idea that moderates don’t want to be “the story.” If true, why did 10 of them bring even more attention to Green’s hell-raising by voting to censure him?
The answer is that “the story” isn’t the issue. The audience of the story is.
Those 10 Democrats had in mind indie voters and “persuadable” Republicans when they betrayed Al Green. They believed they would get credit for upholding the “rules.” All they got was the hatred of normie Democrats. Meanwhile, the party’s reputation for weakness grew.
McBride believes she and others won’t be the story if they attend the SOTU and avoid attention-getting “gestures.” Trump must be forced to see he no longer speaks for the majority, she said. It’s bad optics for him to speak to a roomful of “exclusively sycophants.”
“I hesitate to allow Donald Trump to speak to a room of exclusively sycophants,” she told NOTUS. “I believe that he should have to visually grapple with the fact that there is half of this Congress that opposes him, and that this half represents not only our constituents, but an overwhelming majority of Americans who oppose what this president is doing.”
Courtesy of NOTUS.
But compliance is not going to focus the public's attention, as Democrats are still choosing to sit down and take whatever insults he hurls at them, whatever lies he tells about them, whatever allegations he makes against them. Choosing to sit down and take it actually blurs focus. After all, how bad can Trump be if most of the Democrats are sitting and taking it?
Basically, I think McBride has it backwards. She thinks a boycott would take attention away from Trump. I think it would do the opposite, because within such a choice is the question of why. Why would the Democrats refuse to give the president an audience? Answer: Because he’s stealing the American people’s money. Because he’s stealing the American people’s rights. Because he’s leading a massive cover-up of the serial crimes of the Epstein class.
And so on. He’s becoming so unpopular as to be illegitimate.
No illegitimate president deserves an audience.
What is the Editorial Board?
The Editorial Board is a newsletter about politics in plain English for normal people and the common good. As such, it will always be open to all.
It is, however, not free to make. It takes time to research and write four or five pieces a week. It takes time to put it all together. And I got bills to pay!
So please consider rising above the free list today (check your status at the bottom of this message) and subscribing. It's just $9 a month. So cheap! Save 31 percent by subscribing for the year. If you're already subscribing, please consider a tip!
Thank you! –JS
