By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In light of the president’s alleged abuses of power, his repeated dissemination of falsehoods, and his failure to represent all Americans, it is suggested that citizens refrain from watching the upcoming State of the Union address. The author argues that the president’s actions demonstrate a disregard for the rule of law and a division of the nation, rendering his pronouncements untrustworthy and irrelevant to the actual state of the union, which is depicted as struggling for average citizens. Therefore, the article encourages a collective boycott of the address, potentially alongside congressional representatives, to protest these perceived failings.
Read the original article here
The decision to tune out of the State of the Union address is one many are making, and for valid reasons. It’s not about disengagement from civic life, but rather a conscious choice to reclaim one’s time and mental energy from what feels like a predictable and often disheartening spectacle. For me, and I suspect for many others, the prospect of sitting through a lengthy address filled with what are perceived as untruths is simply unappealing, even actively angering.
The sheer volume of perceived falsehoods can make watching unbearable. If the goal is to be informed, then enduring an extended period of what feels like continuous deception is a counterproductive endeavor. There are simply far more preferable ways to spend that time, activities that don’t leave one feeling drained or manipulated. The idea of voluntarily subjecting oneself to what might be a two-hour onslaught of misinformation is frankly, something many would rather avoid entirely.
There’s a pervasive sense of embarrassment that washes over many when observing the performance. The ritualistic standing and applauding, sometimes after every utterance, can feel manufactured and out of step with any genuine assessment of reality. It’s often perceived as a performance, a rally disguised as a presidential address, rather than a sober reflection on the nation’s condition. The disconnect between the delivered message and the perceived reality can be so profound that it renders the entire exercise difficult to watch with a straight face.
For those who find the content itself to be intellectually taxing, turning to comedic takes on the speech offers a far more palatable option. Journalists are paid to sift through the pronouncements, but for the average viewer, the entertainment value often lies in watching comedians dissect and mock the most outlandish or contradictory moments. This approach allows one to engage with the event without directly enduring its potentially maddening aspects, turning the absurdity into a source of shared amusement.
The repetitive nature of the rhetoric can also be a significant deterrent. When every speech feels like a rehashing of the same talking points, laced with predictable complaints and self-aggrandizement, the novelty quickly wears off. It can feel like watching a broken record, or as some have put it, an “old man yelling at a cloud.” The lack of genuine new information or insightful analysis makes the prospect of dedicated viewing something many would skip, preferring to get the gist of the address through more digestible summaries.
The perception of dishonesty is a recurring theme. The inability to trust the speaker’s words, combined with a vocal cadence that some find grating, creates a barrier to engagement. If the core of the address is perceived as a series of lies, then the willingness to invest time in listening diminishes significantly. It’s not a matter of political preference, but a fundamental issue of truthfulness that makes watching feel like a wasted effort.
Furthermore, the ritualistic nature of the address, with its partisan applause lines and staged moments, can feel more like a political circus than a serious governmental proceeding. The expectation of a constant barrage of blame directed at political opponents, rather than a focus on substantive policy or national progress, reduces the appeal. The absence of accountability for past actions, coupled with an endless stream of accusations, can lead to a feeling of futility in watching.
Some choose to opt out entirely, finding other forms of engagement more meaningful. The democratic response, for instance, might be seen as a more valuable counterpoint, offering a different perspective. Others will wait for the after-show recaps on late-night comedy programs or specialized political commentary shows, where the event is deconstructed and satirized, providing a more entertaining and perhaps more honest assessment than the original broadcast.
The notion of civic duty does not necessarily mandate passively absorbing political spin. There are many ways to be an informed citizen without watching every presidential address. For some, the energy required to endure the perceived negativity and untruths is simply too high a price to pay. Instead, they might focus on other avenues of political engagement or simply seek to avoid unnecessary stress and animosity.
The desire to simply not give more attention or ratings to someone perceived as harmful to the country is a powerful motivator. It’s a form of protest, a refusal to validate what is seen as a performance built on falsehoods. Instead of contributing to the viewership numbers of what feels like a campaign rally masquerading as a national address, many are choosing to focus their attention elsewhere, on more constructive or enjoyable pursuits. The sheer exhaustion that comes from constant political chaos and dysfunction also plays a role, leading many to seek refuge from the perceived unending spectacle.