If Trump Asked Me to Give the 2019 State of the Union Address, Would I Do It? Unpacking the Responsibilities and Format of the Address

When faced with the hypothetical question of whether I would agree to deliver the 2019 State of the Union address on behalf of former President Donald Trump, there are several important considerations that come into play. The primary focus of such an address is Congress, not the general public, and it need not follow the traditional format of a live speech or broadcast. Herein, we will explore the responsibilities involved, the various methods through which such a message can be conveyed, and whether the frequency of the address should be reconsidered.

Understanding the Role and Responsibility

First and foremost, the primary audience for the State of the Union address is Congress. Formally, it is submitted to both houses by the President and is part of the legislative agenda. This address is an opportunity for the President to outline his priorities, goals, and initiatives for the upcoming year. It is not intended for a mass audience of citizens but rather for a legislatorial body that will have a direct impact in enacting and considering such proposals.

Alternative Methods of Delivery

Given this context, the idea of delivering the State of the Union address in a form other than a live speech or televised event is quite plausible. Let's examine a few alternatives:

1. Written Address

One of the potential options is a written address to be handwritten or typed directly by the former President and submitted to Congress. This could be a highly personal and direct form of communication, emphasizing the true intention of the address as a direct appeal to the legislative body. The text could be formally typeset or handwritten and delivered by courier to ensure a tangible and authentic delivery.

2. Email

Another modern and efficient method would be to deliver the address by email. This route would bypass the need for a traditional broadcast and allow for immediate access among the members of Congress. The email could outline key points, proposals, and priorities, allowing for a more focused and tailored approach to the legislative body.

While these methods do not involve a live or televised delivery, they still ensure that the message is communicated clearly and competently, serving the intent of the address without adhering to the traditional format.

Is the Frequency of the Address Appropriate?

Another aspect to consider is whether the frequency of the State of the Union address, currently scheduled once a year, is appropriate. Critics argue that this frequency might not be ideal, as it can lead to overemphasis on specific issues and underrepresentation of others. A faster or slower rotation could allow for a more balanced and comprehensive view of the nation's progress and challenges.

Moreover, scaling back the frequency could free up more time and resources, reducing the focus on one-off speeches and instead allowing more consistent communication through other means, such as regular reports or policy updates. Such adjustments could make the process of setting the legislative agenda more effective and less contentious.

Conclusion

Delivering the State of the Union address is a unique and important obligation, primarily for Congress. The means of delivery—whether by handwritten address, email, or another method—can vary given modern technological advancements. Additionally, reconsidering the frequency of such an address could benefit both the legislative body and the broader public by ensuring a more balanced and consistent view of the nation's progress and priorities.

In summary, while delivering the address on behalf of former President Trump might not be the ideal route, exploring alternative methods and reconsidering the frequency of such an address can contribute to a more effective legislative and communication process.