1/ Yesterday, I had a brief exchange with someone about the need for presidential press briefings, and it got me thinking.
So...a thread on political ceremonies, rituals, and performances, and their importance.
So...a thread on political ceremonies, rituals, and performances, and their importance.
2/ It's tempting to point to the current administration's (former) press briefings and declare them needless, because they were packed with lies.
And yes, they couldn't be trusted.
But they still had -- have -- a purpose.
And yes, they couldn't be trusted.
But they still had -- have -- a purpose.
3/ They demonstrate some of the core ideals of democratic governance.
They publicly show that the government is accountable to the American people.
They show that the public has a right to know what their government is doing.
They show the role of a free press in that process.
They publicly show that the government is accountable to the American people.
They show that the public has a right to know what their government is doing.
They show the role of a free press in that process.
4/ In essence, presidential press briefings show accountability in action.
Did we get trustworthy information from these briefings?
No.
But does their absence mean something? Yes, it does.
Did we get trustworthy information from these briefings?
No.
But does their absence mean something? Yes, it does.
5/ The lack of briefings erases a routine display of accountability & the importance of a free press.
It erases ongoing proof of our right to know what our government does.
And as infuriating as the lying was, it showed a contempt for those things that was important to see.
It erases ongoing proof of our right to know what our government does.
And as infuriating as the lying was, it showed a contempt for those things that was important to see.
6/ There are other such "performances" w/a deeper meaning.
Why does the Speaker have to invite the President to give a state of the Union address to Congress?
Because Congress is a co-equal branch to the executive.
Because it is an independent branch & that independence matters.
Why does the Speaker have to invite the President to give a state of the Union address to Congress?
Because Congress is a co-equal branch to the executive.
Because it is an independent branch & that independence matters.
7/ Imagine how it would feel if the President could simply walk into Congress whenever he/she felt like it, with no invitation, to address the nation.
Does it seemingly reduce Congress's power and authority?
Yes, it does.
Does it seemingly reduce Congress's power and authority?
Yes, it does.
8/ I keep thinking about what George Washington did upon assuming the presidency.
(Yes. I know. But humor me.)
(Yes. I know. But humor me.)
9/ Upon becoming president, GW rode to boardinghouses w/congressmen, got off his horse, bowed to those present, got back on his horse & did the same at the next house.
Silly? Perhaps.
But he was physically demonstrating respect for the people's branch & those represented by it.
Silly? Perhaps.
But he was physically demonstrating respect for the people's branch & those represented by it.
10/ In the swirl of violations that surround us daily, it's easy to sneer or laugh at these kinds of performances.
(And I can't help but laugh at George's insta-bows.)
(And I can't help but laugh at George's insta-bows.)
11/ But such displays mean something -- precisely because they *aren't* needed on a practical level.
They demonstrate core values and ideals.
They're displays of respect to our system of government.
And that matters.
A lot.
/end o' thread
They demonstrate core values and ideals.
They're displays of respect to our system of government.
And that matters.
A lot.
/end o' thread
