At the end of his speech last night, President Obama said, “And tonight, more than two centuries later, it’s because of our people that our future is hopeful, our journey goes forward, and the state of our union is strong.”
If you were surprised to hear that the union is strong then this was probably the first time you’ve heard a State of the Union address. Zach Wendling tracked the state of our union in each of the past sixteen years and found:
The state of our Union is . . .
- 2011: Strong
- 2010: Strong
- 2009: Stronger than before
- 2008: Strong
- 2007: Strong
- 2006: Strong
- 2005: Confident and Strong
- 2004: Confident and Strong
- 2003: Strong
- 2002: Never been stronger
- 2000: Strongest it has ever been
- 1999: Strong
- 1998: Strong
- 1997: Strong
- 1996: Strong
- 1995: Stronger than it was two year ago
- 1994: Growing stronger
From the looks of it, 1993 was our weakest year and 2002 was our strongest. Also, while we are still strong, we haven’t been confident since 2005.
January 26th, 2011 | 2:27 pm
This is really good to know. Here I was thinking that things were looking pretty bleak (from a national perspective, not personal). However, I think I would be more comfortable with a 1994 state of the union – because if THIS is strong…
January 26th, 2011 | 2:34 pm
I thought about that when he said it at the end of the speech. I didn’t have the data, but I wondered if any President in recent history had ever got up there and not said it was “strong,” and if not, what the value of the statement is.
January 26th, 2011 | 3:28 pm
It’s sort of like living in Lake Wobegon.
(“all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average”)
January 26th, 2011 | 3:50 pm
2002 is not necessarily the strongest year – just the strongest year – under Obama it is indisputable that we have become stronger and more confident
January 26th, 2011 | 4:14 pm
My irony detector isn’t that precise, Pat, to tell how serious you are. The “indisputable” part is enough over-the-top (at any time, about any president) to make me think so, but the rest of the text provides no clue.
January 26th, 2011 | 10:32 pm
If I recall correctly, it was Reagan who started this bad habit of saying “The state of the union is strong” as if that contributed anything to informing Congress of the actual state of the union. It’s one of those mistakes that are minor the first time but are genuinely awful when they become common.
January 26th, 2011 | 11:00 pm
2001?
January 27th, 2011 | 2:24 am
JM: That’s easy. It was strong.
January 27th, 2011 | 3:01 am
I wonder if any president has ever described the State of the Union as “fair to middling”? or “pretty good, considering”? or “could be worse”. Or, how about “You really don’t want to know.”
January 27th, 2011 | 8:35 am
State of the Union addresses are not done by incoming presidents.
January 27th, 2011 | 9:33 am
I find the state of the union to be going upward, not downward; rightward, not leftward; and ever twirling, twirling, twirling to victory.
January 27th, 2011 | 10:45 am
“State of the Union addresses are not done by incoming presidents.”
If you’re correct, that’s another tradition that fell to the eminent superiority of The One.
January 27th, 2011 | 4:20 pm
“State of the Union addresses are not done by incoming presidents.”
Not quite (though, to be relevant here, we need to deal with post-’33 addresses, because the timing was different before then). Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Ike, JFK, Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43 gave joint session addresses after their inauguration. Only Nixon and Reagan omitted the gesture, and let the written message of the outgoing predecessor suffice.
January 27th, 2011 | 4:25 pm
paentamom,
Mr Obama’s address to Congress in 2010 was not considered a state of the union address, but simply an address to Congress, which is required by law.
January 28th, 2011 | 10:46 am
“Mr Obama’s address to Congress in 2010 was not considered a state of the union address, but simply an address to Congress, which is required by law.”
I’ve never heard of such a requirement. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but what law is this based on?
January 28th, 2011 | 10:46 am
And do you mean 2009?
January 28th, 2011 | 2:46 pm
An annual report by the president to congress on the state of the union is required in the Constitution, but an incoming president is not required to deliver one. It can be in person or, in the case of presidents Jefferson through Taft and some outgoing presidents thereafter, in writing.
* * *
So, can I assume the need to confect another reason to write ill of the current president on this score was unnecessary?….
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact