Trump’s State of the Union Was Slightly Less “Dumb” Than It Could Have Been

Which isn’t saying much.

Mother Jones illustration; Win Mcnamee/Zuma

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Last night, President Donald Trump fulfilled his constitutional duty to read a lot of words to both houses of Congress. The address provided an encouraging data point for people who fret about the supposed dumbing-down of the State of the Union address (and by extension, America): A high school freshman could understand it.

Slowly but surely, State of the Union addresses have been becoming easier to understand, as measured by the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level test. President George Washington’s addresses were, on average, written at a 18th-grade reading level. James Madison hit an all-time high with his 21st-grade reading level. (No doubt a reflection of the large number of early 19th century Americans with doctoral degrees.) Yet no president since Warren G. Harding has managed to get an average readability level beyond 12th grade. Barack Obama’s final State of the Union speech came in at an 8th-grade reading level. Yet Trump (and his speechwriters) bucked the trend by crafting an address at a 9th-grade reading level.   

 

 
Of course, rating SOTU speeches by this metric is dumber than the dumbness it supposedly illustrates. Eighteenth and nineteenth-century presidents were delivering formal, often written, speeches to elite audiences, not producing moments made to be televised, YouTubed, and tweeted in seven-second soundbites. And the memorableness or impact of a particular address has little to do with its ostensible readability or sophistication—we’re still living with the fallout from George W. Bush’s 2002 “axis of evil” speech, which was written at a 10th grade reading level.   

And the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level test is not a good way to evaluate the how “smart” a speech is. It’s calculated from the average number of words per sentence and the average number of syllables per word, which doesn’t tell you anything about a statement’s content, style, or seriousness. (It can’t even tell if it’s analyzing another language or encoded text.) And the words a president reads off a teleprompter tell us less about his intellectual capacity or mental faculties than the words he speaks extemporaneously. 

Trump chalked up another trivial statistical achievement last night. His speech clocked in at an hour and 20 minutes, the longest spoken SOTU since 2000, when Bill Clinton went out with a nearly 89-minute valedictory. In 1972, Richard Nixon got in and out in under 29 minutes. No one remembers either of those speeches.

  

When it came to word count, Trump didn’t set any new records. His prepared text was 5,190 words long. In comparison, Obama usually hit the 6,000- to 7,000-word range. And no one has gotten near Theodore Roosevelt, who in 1907 presented members of Congress with copies of a 27,397-word statement, which they were forced to listen to someone else deliver. It was written at a level that could be understood by a 21st century college junior. Was it any smarter than modern addresses? Apparently not: A British paper complained that “the portentious [sic] length of the document is not compensated by any boldness of conception or originality of ideas.”  

 

 

In case you were curious, this article has a Flesch-Kincaid reading level of 9.8; that’s 0.4 points higher than the score for Trump’s State of the Union. (It was 9.5 but then I quoted a 111-year-old newspaper, which made it seem more sophisticated.) 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate