Alone with the Country

I have been searching for a new format for this blog. Format does not mean I plan on writing more regularly (I’m not making promises this time) it just means I want a transition that will allow me to talk about topics that are not directly related to the wide world of sports (I know, good call with the Olympics coming up). I got to thinking, what better way to change topic then to do it like removing a band-aid: quickly, extremely painfully, but quickly forgotten.

I was watching the State of the Union address last night and decided on one thing. There should be no crowd. Instead it should be held as if it were one of the fireside chats made famous by Roosevelt and later Jimmy Carter. My reasoning behind this deals with the disheartening aspect of a country divided in a time where the populous should be encouraged to band together.

Don’t mistake what I’m saying as a plea for republicans and democrats to band together and sing “We are the world”. The party system is what makes this country great and with a party system you will have disagreement. Like any relationship, politics aren’t always free and easy.

My argument or plea deals with one aspect of the speech, the crowd’s applause. At various moments the democratic half of the audience would stand in roaring applause while the republicans would sit with the “someone definitely farted” face plastered on their faces. I understand that they do not agree. I can’t say I agree with everything Obama, or any other politician, says. This picture doesn't look good for the citizens or the viewers in other countries. It allows people to passively listen and only follow the political beliefs of their party. It does not allow for personal political growth, an aspect quickly disappearing in the world today. To viewers not living in this country it comes off as a country divided, a perception we should be fighting given our economic difficulties. On the other hand, when the masses would applaud and cheer together an uplifting and pride-filled feeling filled the air. The same sentiment that leads people and teams to do great things everyday.

We as people are not the same. We do not look the same, speak the same language, we are not in the same financial standing, and we do not think the same. During the address I would not want republicans to cheer aimlessly for no reason unless they stood for what was being said. With that said I do not want them sitting there pouting. If republicans were in power, I would not want democrats spoiling the party by being the stick in the mud.

To this argument I see two solutions: one I like and one I don’t. I’m going start with the one I don’t like so I can get it over with.

Solution #1: The president's political party will be invited to the address.
This means if the president is republican then only republicans are invited to the address and vice versa. This will give the appearance of togetherness and camaraderie needed to bring the country together. I don’t like the rally-type campaign aspect to this solution. Serious issues are dealt with in the State of the Union and only allowing certain people in would allow the president to distance himself from the issues and focus on giving the crowd what they want (a scary idea).

Solution #2: No guests. One on one speech with the audience.
Tell me one reason this doesn’t work. It allows for a peaceful atmosphere on which the issues that affect us and their solutions can be heard. It eliminates the divided aspect of the proceedings, putting to rest the notion that the United States are just a bunch of spoiled kids that can’t get along. It doesn’t allow people to see the snarled faces of the opposition who look as though they are openly planning to beat the president up afterwards. Just as importantly, it allows people to distance themselves from the supporters who look like they are teens getting drunk for the first time at a Dave Matthews concert.

A secluded atmosphere gives people the ability to listen; I mean really listen, to what our leader is saying. It will let people mold their own political sentiments and ideals. It would give depth to new voters, while potentially opening the eyes of voters that have chosen a political party. Just because someone is a democrat does not mean they have to drink Obama’s Kool-Aid. Furthermore, just because you voted for McCain doesn’t mean that you have to disagree with Obama’s intentions or ideals across the board. Too many people pick a side, learn the hot words du jour (Iraq, Healthcare, etc.), and hole up until they can pretend to care about the new candidates while knowing that no matter what, they are going to vote with their affiliation.

A fireside chat cannot solve all these problems. Hell, it may not solve any of them but it’s a step in the right direction. Scott Brown referred to the seat he just won as “the people’s seat”; well the ultimate people’s seat in the United States is the president’s. If you take voting seriously and you care about your country wouldn’t it be fair to listen to what the president has to say without the filters and voices telling you how to feel? In our day and age, we cannot escape critiques from every angle but we can listen. We should be allowed to listen without having prompts in the audience. Close the doors to the State of the Union and open you ears; it’s the only way anyone can really hear what’s going on.