When’s the last time you had a really heated tit-for-tat argument with someone (preferably someone to whom you are not related)? You know, kind of along the lines of Donald Trump and Nancy Pelosi playing fast and loose with tradition and compromise.

It’s not accurately known, at least by me, whether or not the two adversaries are calling their own shots or simply green-lighting suggestions proffered by aides, supporters, sycophants, or money men/women. Whatever the case, when Ms. Pelosi broadly hinted she, as Speaker of the House of Representatives, may not extend an invitation to the President to come deliver his State of the Union Address in person this year, Mr. Trump responded by canceling his authorization of a delegation of Congresspersons (which, coincidentally enough, included Ms. Pelosi) to utilize a government jet for a trip to take a look around various hot spots in the world.

Presidents, as a rule, don’t normally like to be told when and where to do something. And missing Congressional junkets doesn’t often sit well with elected representatives. Needless to say, chances are, there won’t be a lot of cordial, convivial, cooperative meetings in the near future (if ever) involving Nancy and The Donald.

That might not work out so well for effective government, but it certainly can be entertaining – or should that be embarrassing? It’s almost like two cliques in high school trying to make life as miserable as possible for the targeted foe.

Right now, the President is scheduled to give the SOTU speech on Tuesday, January 29th. There’s really nothing in the Constitution that says he has to provide an update in person on Capitol Hill. What if, as more than one pundit has suggested, Mr. Trump found a venue more to his liking than standing in front of a House divided?

Picture, if you will, the President appearing before a large stadium jam-packed with admiring masses in the middle of one of the many flyover states he won in 2016. He’d definitely be interrupted by thunderous applause countless times with nary a discouraging word heard. He could have a field day saying that the state of the union is great and would be even greater if the Democratic leadership would get their heads out of their – uh – sand-filled beaches.

He could recite a litany of what he believes to be the promises kept. Things such as the tax cuts, exiting the deal with Iran and the Paris climate accord, helping Veterans, making other NATO nations pony up their fair share of the costs, and moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem would make the crowd go wild. Mention of The Wall would set off a wild cacophony of collective conservative cries of delight.

Once the state of the union had been explained to the delight of the assembled masses, it would, as tradition now dictates, be the turn of the Democrats to offer their view of the situation. And they would not be without their own interesting setting and audience.

Back at the ranch, the Ds could also quite possibly use the non-invitation to their advantage. This year, instead of appearing in a non-descript office setting, the Democratic response could be given from the podium in the House of Representatives where the President usually stands.

Now, given the most recent Nancy and Chuck (Schumer, Senate Minority Leader) double-team show that even the most loyal party members would probably agree looked like two cardboard cutouts on a street corner that tourists stand next to for pictures, perhaps a little more animation would be in order. Even a different tandem or solo performer could take center stage.

There’s nothing that says the rebuttal speech has to be given just to the camera lens. Whoever speaks on behalf of the Democrats could conceivably preach to a packed House chamber made up of all manner of supporters. Said attendees might even be encouraged to whoop and holler on occasion. Especially when the speaker lambasts the President as, chances are, he or she would see fit to do.

Both speeches would be must-see TV – wonderful spectacles to behold, not only for We the People, but for folks watching all over the world.

OR – and that’s a big two-letter word – the warring parties could actually act like responsible adults who were elected to lead the country instead of constantly tearing it asunder.

Perhaps we should insist that a couple of random average Americans give their own views of the state of the union. My guess is, those speeches would be far different from what we’re inevitably going to hear.


©MMXIX. William J. Lewis, III – Freelance Writer