By John Sides
(Getty)
Tonight’s State of the Union Address—known by Beltway types as the “SOTU address”—will be picked over by politicos and pundits alike. But put the armchair analysis and partisan spin aside. What are the real effects, if any, that this speech might have?
The modern presidency is a “rhetorical” one, argues political scientist Jeffrey Tulis. Speeches and other public speaking are central to what presidents do. But it was not always this way. The SOTU address was, from Jefferson up until Wilson, delivered as a letter to members of Congress, not as a speech before them. In 1913, when Wilson announced his decision to address Congress directly, Washingtonians were apparently “amazed” and “agape.”
Wilson broke not only that precedent but others. His speeches were dramatically shorter than SOTU addresses had become—unsurprising, given that he read most of them aloud. For example, Taft’s address in 1910 was 27,651 words long. In 1914, Wilson’s was only 4,537 words long. Subsequent addresses have stayed close to that number. In 2010, President Barack Obama’s was 7,304 words long.
Wilson also changed the form of the speech, according to according to research by political scientist Ryan Teten, who examined every address from 1790 to 1999. Wilson began a trend in appealing directly to or identify with the American people—one evident in the increasing use of the words “we” and “our.” These pronouns were about four times as common in the 1990s as in the 1890s.
With the speech now geared for a mass-media broadcast and more obviously targeted at the American people, it would seem likely to become more effective. Indeed, State of the Union addresses can have some impact, but it is highly circumscribed. Political scientist Jason Barabas found that State of the Union addresses help voters learn about the president’s policy proposals. However, voters learn not from watching the address itself, but from subsequent media coverage of the address—and then only if there is media coverage of the policy proposal itself. How big is the effect? Looking at surveys measuring knowledge of 37 policy proposals from four SOTU addresses, Mr. Barabas finds the public was 10 points more likely to know about a proposal that was discussed in 33 news stories than it was to know about a proposal that received no news coverage.
Other research suggests that SOTU addresses can change the public’s agenda, but again the effects are not overwhelming. In an analysis of SOTU addresses from 1953-89, political scientist Jeffrey Cohen found that the more emphasis presidents gave to particular issues, the larger the fraction of Americans who considered those issues important problems. However, those effects were often short-lived, lasting at best a year in the case of economic issues, which are certain to be Mr. Obama’s focus.
SOTU addresses rarely impact approval of the president himself. Politifact summarizes this fact nicely. In this sense, SOTU addresses are really no different than any presidential speech–few of which have moved approval in any significant direction, according to the book “On Deaf Ears” by political scientist George Edwards. Why? For one, the audience for presidential speeches and press conferences is shrinking, due in part to the proliferation of entertainment options on cable television. Those who do watch the SOTU address tend to pay close attention to politics and have strong opinions that are difficult to change.
Mark Blumenthal suggests that maybe—just maybe—Mr. Obama’s address will prove different. But he notes that any SOTU “bump” likely depends Republicans’ refraining from criticizing the president. Even if they do, it shouldn’t be long before our polarized parties once again come to loggerheads, dimming any afterglow for Mr. Obama.
(Getty)
Tonight’s State of the Union Address—known by Beltway types as the “SOTU address”—will be picked over by politicos and pundits alike. But put the armchair analysis and partisan spin aside. What are the real effects, if any, that this speech might have?
The modern presidency is a “rhetorical” one, argues political scientist Jeffrey Tulis. Speeches and other public speaking are central to what presidents do. But it was not always this way. The SOTU address was, from Jefferson up until Wilson, delivered as a letter to members of Congress, not as a speech before them. In 1913, when Wilson announced his decision to address Congress directly, Washingtonians were apparently “amazed” and “agape.”
Wilson broke not only that precedent but others. His speeches were dramatically shorter than SOTU addresses had become—unsurprising, given that he read most of them aloud. For example, Taft’s address in 1910 was 27,651 words long. In 1914, Wilson’s was only 4,537 words long. Subsequent addresses have stayed close to that number. In 2010, President Barack Obama’s was 7,304 words long.
Wilson also changed the form of the speech, according to according to research by political scientist Ryan Teten, who examined every address from 1790 to 1999. Wilson began a trend in appealing directly to or identify with the American people—one evident in the increasing use of the words “we” and “our.” These pronouns were about four times as common in the 1990s as in the 1890s.
With the speech now geared for a mass-media broadcast and more obviously targeted at the American people, it would seem likely to become more effective. Indeed, State of the Union addresses can have some impact, but it is highly circumscribed. Political scientist Jason Barabas found that State of the Union addresses help voters learn about the president’s policy proposals. However, voters learn not from watching the address itself, but from subsequent media coverage of the address—and then only if there is media coverage of the policy proposal itself. How big is the effect? Looking at surveys measuring knowledge of 37 policy proposals from four SOTU addresses, Mr. Barabas finds the public was 10 points more likely to know about a proposal that was discussed in 33 news stories than it was to know about a proposal that received no news coverage.
Other research suggests that SOTU addresses can change the public’s agenda, but again the effects are not overwhelming. In an analysis of SOTU addresses from 1953-89, political scientist Jeffrey Cohen found that the more emphasis presidents gave to particular issues, the larger the fraction of Americans who considered those issues important problems. However, those effects were often short-lived, lasting at best a year in the case of economic issues, which are certain to be Mr. Obama’s focus.
SOTU addresses rarely impact approval of the president himself. Politifact summarizes this fact nicely. In this sense, SOTU addresses are really no different than any presidential speech–few of which have moved approval in any significant direction, according to the book “On Deaf Ears” by political scientist George Edwards. Why? For one, the audience for presidential speeches and press conferences is shrinking, due in part to the proliferation of entertainment options on cable television. Those who do watch the SOTU address tend to pay close attention to politics and have strong opinions that are difficult to change.
Mark Blumenthal suggests that maybe—just maybe—Mr. Obama’s address will prove different. But he notes that any SOTU “bump” likely depends Republicans’ refraining from criticizing the president. Even if they do, it shouldn’t be long before our polarized parties once again come to loggerheads, dimming any afterglow for Mr. Obama.
