Because We’ve Always Done It This Way: Should Lawmakers Still Sit Quietly During the State of the Union?

Because We’ve Always Done It This Way

The Constitution requires the President to report to Congress on the state of the nation. It does not require lawmakers to pretend the moment exists outside modern reality.

In the 21st century, when speeches are livestreamed, clipped, debated in real time, and countered instantly across multiple platforms, the question is no longer whether the address happens. The question is whether elected officials must still sit silently for hours while the opposing party’s leader delivers a political message without immediate response.

Because we’ve always done it this way.

Anyone who has worked in federal service or large institutions has heard that phrase. Tradition becomes routine, routine becomes expectation, and expectation becomes justification. But the framers of the Constitution wrote for a republic of handwritten letters and horse-drawn travel, not a political environment where every word is broadcast worldwide within seconds.

So why are lawmakers, particularly Democrats traveling back to Washington after one of the largest winter storms in recent memory, expected to fill the chamber as a show of unity when the country itself feels anything but unified?

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries addressed the question directly when asked whether he would attend, saying, “It’s my view that you don’t let anyone ever run you off of your block.” For some, attendance is about presence and symbolism. For others, the expectation of silent defiance feels outdated in an era defined by immediate response and constant media access.

Because we’ve always done it this way.

Supporters of tradition argue that remaining in the chamber demonstrates institutional stability and respect for the office, regardless of who occupies it. Critics counter that sitting quietly through a highly political speech may project passivity rather than strength, especially when alternative forms of engagement exist outside the chamber. With rallies, press briefings, and digital counterprogramming happening simultaneously, lawmakers have more options than ever to respond in real time.

Throughout American history, presidents have faced fierce opposition, and Congress has wrestled with how to balance decorum with dissent. James Buchanan is often cited among the least effective presidents, criticized for failing to prevent the nation’s slide toward civil war. Today’s debates echo that history, as critics argue that political rhetoric can deepen divisions while supporters claim it reflects the urgency of the moment.

The State of the Union has always been as much political theater as constitutional obligation. The difference now is that the audience is no longer confined to the chamber. Lawmakers are no longer limited to silent applause or protest. They have microphones, livestreams, and audiences of their own.

So perhaps the real question is not whether tradition should be abandoned, but whether it should evolve. Because “we’ve always done it this way” may explain the past, but it does not necessarily justify the future.