The State of the Union Address came and went again. Even though it was on eight channels, I managed to avoid watching it. From the few highlights I saw, I got the same feeling that I get every year. The only things missing were Siegfried and Roy and maybe some showgirls.

Clinton was wearing a suit with a red tie, but it seemed to me that he would have been more appropriately dressed in a tuxedo.

Clinton would say something and all of the Democrats would cheer while the Republicans sat on their hands.

Clinton rolled out all of his new initiatives that came straight out of public opinion polls with little thought given to feasibility or cost.

The State of the Union Address was once again shameless self promotion of the party in power.

In its current form, the State of the Union Address is at best an annoying interruption to quality prime time programming.

To find the makeover the State of the Union needs, one need not look any further than channel 3.

I personally can’t stand the X-Files, so when eight o’clock rolls around on Sunday evening I turn the channel to C-SPAN to take in “Prime Minister’s Questions.”

Every Wednesday, British Prime Minister Tony Blair goes before the House of Commons for a thirty minute question and answer session.

The adversarial mood and the continuous parade of snide remarks and insults makes it much more interesting and informative to watch than any American political event, including the Lewinsky scandal.

The purpose of “Prime Minister’s Questions” is similar to that of the State of the Union.

It is a way for members of Parliament to get information about government policies, with the added opportunity to inform the Prime Minister of constituent grievances.

The session is run by the Speaker of the House, who is currently Betty Boothroyd, an older woman who is still full of piss and vinegar.

She acknowledges questioners and keeps track of the 30 minute time limit, but her biggest challenge by far is to keep order with her gavel and rapier wit.

Everyone must address their colleagues as “Honorable” and cabinet ministers and senior party ministers as “Right Honorable,” no matter how much contempt they hold for each other.

The Prime Minister can only be asked questions about his responsibilities. Because many responsibilities are delegated to ministers, as they are to cabinet members here, there aren’t many questions the PM has to answer.

To get around this, questioners ask an opening question followed by a supplementary question about any government policy.

The question rule is waived for the opposition leader William Hague of the Conservative Party. The main attraction of PM Questions are the heated exchanges between PM Tony Blair of the Labour Party and William Hague at the beginning of the session.

They sit facing each other behind podiums, two sword-lengths apart due to past problems in the House of Commons.

It is my suggestion that we adopt Prime Minister’s Questions here in the United States.

With our current system, the only people who get to question the President are White House correspondents, who aren’t usually the sharpest knives in the drawer.

The President is also able to avoid the press for long periods of time as Clinton did after the Lewinsky scandal and Reagan did to hide the fact that he was brain dead.

It would also serve to show that the President knows what is going on and has the mental faculties to perform his duties.

You may think that Tony Blair has the worst ideas on the planet, but you have to admit that he is a sharp fellow and an excellent extemporaneous speaker.

Blair has a binder full of figures that he references during the exchanges, but beyond that he holds his own.

I have a gut feeling that some of our presidents would not have been able to withstand such a scenario.

President’s Questions would give our opposition leader, the Speaker of the House or House Minority Leader, the opportunity to voice the concerns and opinions of the minority party on a weekly basis, leading to healthier political discourse.

PM Questions are limited to government policies, so we wouldn’t have our time wasted with questions of drug use or who did what to whoever’s whatever.

President’s Questions could be started next week without any legislation.

Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution says of the President: “He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”

By tradition we have interpreted “from time to time” to mean once every January, but we could just as easily make it every week.

---

Erik Hoversten is a senior in math from Eagan, Minnesota.