Nib #11: Biden’s Botched SOTU, Part 1: Propose, Don’t Impose

Democracies run on persuasion. You can’t make people agree with you. Nor, outside the fantasy worlds of Aaron Sorkin, can liberals preen and insult conservatives into ideological surrender. Joe Biden’s speechwriters — all no doubt fans (as I am!) of The American President and The West Wing — forgot this fact when they drafted the president’s sneering, self-indulgent State of the Union Address earlier this month.


Post-SOTU polls found that it was the least well-received SOTU in a generation and won Biden no “bump” in his overall approval ratings.


Why didn’t it work?


One reason is that the speech did not even try to persuade. 


Over and over, rather than propose his ideas, Biden tried to impose them, excoriating opponents of his every policy preference as cowards, villains, and threats to the republic.


Skeptics of aid to Ukraine? “Bowing down to Russia.”


Pro-lifers? “My God, what freedoms will you take away next?”


Skeptics of the president’s doomed border proposal? “Playing politics.”


Skeptics of Democrats’ hyper-partisan plan to federalize state election laws? Racist “forces taking us back in time.”


Skeptics his job-killing environmental agenda? Climate deniers.


The speech refused to even entertain the possibility that Biden’s own policies played any role in the problems America faces today. Or that anyone to his right might also want to solve them.


It was a speech written for a country that does not exist — again, except in left-wing movies and TV shows. Its overriding theme was: Agree with me or you are evil.


Except… Most Americans already disagree with Biden on lots of things.


Rather than try to win them over, the speech sought to bully and shame skeptics for their skepticism, like a religious leader threatening heretics.


This messianism is not unheard of in politics, but it does not suit Joe Biden, or serve his interests in 2024.


Both as president and as a presidential candidate this year, Biden should have tried to build up trust with the tens of millions of Americans not already in his camp. 


Nor would doing so have required him to alter any of his policy positions! Simply adjusting the tone of the speech would have sufficed.


Had Biden proposed the very same agenda he instead tried to rhetorically impose, he might not have so excited online woke activists who more than anything want to demonize conservatives. But he might have won over the Trump-skeptical Republicans, undecided independents, and Reagan-Clinton Democrats he needs to win in November.


The irony is that throughout his career, those were the kinds of people Joe Biden always courted — and probably would still, if he was really running his White House. It’s Biden’s young progressive staffers, who grew up on Aaron Sorkin’s fairy tales, who botched the SOTU.


Until next week... keep writing!

April 25, 2025
Five quick tips for polishing your prose.
April 18, 2025
A good poem for Good Friday.
April 11, 2025
James Michael Curley's list of must-haves for public speakers (and speechwriters).
April 4, 2025
Two essays point to a generational opportunity for young writers.
March 28, 2025
Honest Abe was a great writer -- especially the one time he wasn't.
March 21, 2025
Not today, Satan.
March 14, 2025
The official Democratic response to President Donald Trump’s big speech before Congress last week offered the country not only a contrast of political visions, but of rhetorical strategies. Trump’s address was defined by — and indeed, succeeded on — the strength of its concrete details: specific programs cut, specific heroes lauded, specific private-sector investments announced (See Nib #61 ). Democratic Senator Elissa Slotkin’s nationally televised speech immediately following Trump was, too. But not obviously. Most of the specific details of the speech were biographical, in the first 100 words. After that, Slotkin glazed over issues with airbrushed generalities: “We need to bring down the price of things we spend the most money on…” “… change doesn’t need to be chaotic or make us less safe…” “Today’s world is deeply interconnected…” “We are a nation of strivers.” The climax of Slotkin’s speech was almost a parody of homogenized political banalities. The two things we need to overcome today’s challenges, according to Slotkin and her speechwriters: “Engaged citizens and principled leaders.” Woof. On the other hand, Democrats know this poll-tested pap won’t move the needle. So what’s really going on here? The most likely answer is what boxers call the “rope-a-dope.” That is, Slotkin’s — and by extension her party’s — plan here is to put up perfunctory, superficial resistance to bait Trump into overreaching or punching himself out. This is what Muhammed Ali famously did to George Foreman in 1974.
March 7, 2025
Tuesday night's address was a speechwriting masterclass in the power of specific detail.
February 28, 2025
How to use, and not use, intensifiers.
February 21, 2025
Why an old-school writing exercise may be more valuable than ever.
More Posts