How to Improve the SOTU Response. Seriously.

Over at the Monkey Cage, Arthur Lupia has a post titled “Three ways to improve the response to the State of the Union address.” My first response was, “Please continue. I promise not to laugh.” But it turns out he really does have some good advice:

Today’s SOTU responses have the production qualities of a 1980s cable-access program….Contrast this with the crowds that greet the president when he enters and the frequent applause he receives (even if offered by only half of the attendees). Viewers notice these differences, which can provide visual and aural reinforcement to the notion that the responding party is second-best.

…..Add an audience. Ample research shows that people’s acceptance of new information often depends on how they see others responding to it. If the response can be delivered in front of citizens whose enthusiasm for the message is energetic and genuine, viewers will sense that.

….Include lots of energetic young adults….Because there will always be plenty of young voters who want to play a bigger role in the responding party’s future, why not invite them to be part of the audience? Viewers would see, hear and feel the energy that such can audience can create.

There has to be some reason that opposing parties don’t do this already. It’s all pretty obvious advice, especially the second point about doing the speech in front of an audience. But what’s the reason? Do the old fogies think the SOTU is a sacred event that shouldn’t be diminished by stagecraft and a cheering audience? That seems unlikely. Are the cable nets unwilling to broadcast an obvious campaign speech? Give me a break. Everyone knows what these things are. Do the party wheelhorses not care because they figure no one watches it anyway? That’s possible—just barely—but it’s hard to believe that no one sees the possibilities. And it’s not like a more vibrant response would cost a ton of money to put on. A few hundred cheering kids would be plenty. You don’t need to do it in the Astrodome.

Anyway, weird stuff. It seems like such an obvious missed opportunity. What explains it?


Mother Jones was founded as a nonprofit in 1976 because we knew corporations and the wealthy wouldn't fund the type of hard-hitting journalism we set out to do.

Today, reader support makes up about two-thirds of our budget, allows us to dig deep on stories that matter, and lets us keep our reporting free for everyone. If you value what you get from Mother Jones, please join us with a tax-deductible donation today so we can keep on doing the type of journalism 2019 demands.

We Recommend


Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.


Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.