Having spent my middle and high school years watching President George Bush’s State of the Union addresses almost every year, I always look forward to the president’s assessment of how our nation is faring and what legislation Congress should enact to either patch things up or direct our attention toward achieving lofty goals or fulfilling brilliant missions.

My biggest frustration, however, was always the pomp and ceremony surrounding the event. This year was the worst I’ve seen and, since I have bored myself (and probably you too) with talking about politics, I want to comment on the display that surrounded Tuesday night’s annual address.

Before it began, CNN — and I’m certain they were typical of all the news networks airing President Barack Obama’s speech — had commentators making sure we all knew who had just arrived in the House Chamber. Flashy subtitles and dramatic voices all made sure we were tuned in to the event, anxiously awaiting the words of wisdom from our leader.

The sergeant at arms for the House, presumably, also introduced arrivals to the guests, shouting their names into the chamber as they arrived. The whole scene was reminiscient of a monarch’s court appearance, waited on by the illustrious members of his or her court. As they walked to their seats, the guests shook hands with all the other luminaries. Clearly, the State of the Union address is a place to see and be seen.

President Obama is entitled to some ceremony when he arrives. He is, after all, our duly elected head of state and chief executive. He is the man responsible for carrying out the laws we, the people of the United States, enact through our representatives in Congress. But the amount of time it takes the president to make his way to the rostrum, and, later, to exit the House, is obscene. He is there to make a speech, not schmooze his way to popularity by shaking hands with the guests crowding the aisles as he would at a campaign event.

Aside from all the media exaggeration that goes along with the State of the Union year in and year out, listening to Obama — as it often did with Bush — sounded like listening to a boring sermon. Where the content of the speech itself is concerned, I appreciated Obama’s stressing the importance of people doing what they can themselves to improve the economy as well as his awareness of how broken Congress is.

But the interaction with his audience exposed how farcical State of the Union addresses have become. Wholehearted, confident applause was absent most of the speech. Nearly every time it began in at least the first half of the speech, the applause seemed hesitant, as if those doing the clapping were unsure of what they should do. Maybe it is a symptom of politics in general, that we insist on identifying ourselves as part of our groups instead of becoming our own personalities and striking our own path. Whatever it is, it is unfortunate.

Some audience members, notably House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., seemed to harbor contempt for either the proceeding, the message or Obama himself. Even though contempt for the address may be well placed, communication between the president and Congress is essential. And that may be the most troubling part of what the State of the Union has become.

Presidents deliver State of the Union speeches to Congress because the Constitution says that the president “shall from time to time give to the Congress Information on the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”

We did not always have to bear witness to this circus. While President Washington delivered his speeches himself, from President Jefferson through President Taft the annual messages were written and, upon deliver, read by a clerk. That practice should serve as an instruction in how our political system is supposed to operate.

The president only has to deal with the American people every four years. Representatives do so only ever other year, and senators do so every six years. And apart from the months preceding their elections, they are free to ignore us. Perhaps they should. Perhaps the American people need to be less involved in politics during their offseason.

I am not saying Americans should be disengaged from politics. They should vigilantly watch what their representatives propose and enact, and what policies executive officials prefer to carry out and how they go about doing so. They should write letters to the editor to their local newspapers and they should talk amongst themselves, honing their awareness of the issues as well as other perspectives.

But in crafting legislation, members of Congress have to work with the president. To pass his agenda, the president has to work with and through members of Congress. The State of the Union is for their benefit and, to the extent that it serves to display the president’s (un)popularity with the folks back home or generalize about the issues, it hurts our political process.