Why do we have a State of the Union? Here’s a history of its traditions

Nearly everyone has attended a meeting and thought, “This could’ve been an email.” In the case of the State of the Union, it actually could be.

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it require the president to stand behind a podium and address the nation every year. It simply states that “from time to time” the president shall update Congress on the state of the country and provide recommendations for change.

But over the years the constitutionally mandated presidential update has taken on a life of its own, evolving from a humble written report into one of the biggest spectacles in American politics.

The centuries-old ritual was borrowed, like many aspects of American government, from the British, according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS). The concept came from the king’s “speech from the throne,” which opened each new session of parliament.

George Washington and John Adams, America’s first two presidents, delivered the address, then known as the president’s annual message to Congress, in person, according to the CRS. However, Thomas Jefferson, more an advocate of small government than his predecessors, thought the practice was “monarchical” and laborious, and decided to send written updates instead.

These early updates tended to be short on policy messages and were generally “peppered with mundane budget and economic information,” according to Louis L. Picone, historian and author of “Grant’s Tomb: The Epic Death of Ulysses S. Grant and the Making of an American Pantheon.”

The precedent of the written address was followed for a hundred years up until Woodrow Wilson made the “radical decision to break tradition and present in person,” according to Picone.

Wilson, the former president of Princeton University, was likely comfortable speaking in front of crowds as he studied public speaking and debate when he was a student, according to The Southern Speech Journal.

Every president since him has carried on the tradition of the in-person address, though Franklin Roosevelt had someone else read his address in front of Congress in 1945, according to the archives of the U.S. House of Representatives.

In 1947, the speech officially became known as the State of the Union Address, according to the House archives.

The advent of radio and television allowed the message to be broadcast far beyond the confines of Congress and across the nation, according to the archives.

Calvin Coolidge was the first premier to have his speech transmitted over radio in 1923, and Harry Truman delivered the first State of the Union address broadcast on television in 1947.

Along with these technological changes came a series of new traditions, including inviting guests to sit in the House Gallery, a practice first started by Ronald Reagan, and the opposition response, a rebuttal to the State of the Union, which first began in 1966, according to the CRS.

Another more subtle change which occurred over the last century was the shift in the substance of the address from a dry administrative report to something akin to a rallying cry for the president and his agenda, according to the House archives.

“It’s become a performance for the president, whereas in the prior days these were messages written for politicians,” Thomas Balcerski, a visiting professor and presidential historian at Occidental College, told McClatchy News. “It’s now a very different animal than it was before.”

Reagan’s presidency was a key turning point in this transformation to spectacle, Balcerski said.

“I think Reagan understood that this was a chance for him to shine and to do so in his element,” Balcerski said. The Hollywood actor turned politician “played into his strengths as a speech giver and communicator.”

Is the State of the Union necessary?

Because of its metamorphosis from an administrative update sans fanfare to a primetime performance, experts, including former speech writers, are divided over its value in American society today.

“State of the Unions at their very best are often eloquent laundry lists …” Michael Waldman, a former speechwriter for President Bill Clinton, told NPR.

Washington Post columnist George Will derided the modern presidential address as a form of “presidency-worship,” writing in a 2013 column that “State of the Union addresses are now integral to the apotheosis of the presidency.”

Former Ronald Reagan speech writer turned Wall Street Journal opinion columnist Peggy Noonan is of a different mind. In 2019, she wrote, “The speech forces a White House to concentrate on what it thinks. Suddenly it must determine and put into words its priorities for the coming year.”

“A fracturing nation cannot afford to so blithely cast aside another of its traditions,” she added.

Despite criticism, the tradition doesn’t appear to be going anywhere anytime soon. President Joe Biden will give his address on Tuesday, Feb. 7 at 9 p.m. ET, according to the White House.

This story was originally published February 7, 2023 at 1:46 PM with the headline "Why do we have a State of the Union? Here’s a history of its traditions."