state of the union

I noted earlier that I wouldn't post on politics again for a while.  What I should have rather said is that I won't take a political position in a post for a while.  What's worse is that I don't know how to right this in a way that doesn't sound snobbish.  Forgive me for this.

I generally pride myself on keeping up with political policy news, as well as the implications of different political positions.  However, I decided many years ago that I detested watching the State of the Union address as well as the rebuttal, so I have refused to watch either speech for the past ten years or so.  I also largely avoid televised political debates and political speeches.  No matter who is giving the speech I always feel like the sketchiest logic is used to score political points, and I get the sense that these events are meant to appeal to the people who care about the drama of politics rather than the nuances of policy. Since this turns my stomach—and it truly does—I do my civic-duty research elsewhere.

I do typically read up on the highlights of the State of the Union and its rebuttal after it occurs.  I am also usually very interested in reading about the highlights of political debates they occur.  However, I am less concerned about the drama that frequently creates headlines ("Politician so-and-so drew applause by issuing a killer jab to his opponent," or, "Idiot politician thought the capital of North Dakota was Helena."), and more interested in whether they gave hints to the nuances of their policy positions or proposals.

I always feel a little like I am not doing my civic duty by refusing to watch these events.  I can imagine the groans of a thousand social studies teachers at what appears to be my apathy or cynicism at this part of the process.  It does my emotional health good to avoid them, though.  With that, I think that not watching the State of the Union has to qualify as a very specific guilty pleasure of mine.