On Tuesday night, President Barack Obama delivered a State of the Union address that was frequently interrupted by cheering from the audience. Showering the President in applause has long been an unspoken tradition of these annual presentations, but the practice can be disruptive. In 2011, Linton Weeks of NPR noted that President Obama was interrupted by outbursts of clapping over 80 times during his speech.  He goes on to relay an anecdote in which President Gerald Ford was bewildered by the sound of thunderous applause during his State of the Union in 1973.

This year’s address proceeded similarly, with those in attendance eager to clap when offered the slightest provocation or pause by Obama.

However, not every politician participates in the pep-rally atmosphere that pervades these annual gatherings in our nation’s capital. During an interview with CNN, former Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson shared her wish that “we would have a moratorium on standing and let everybody listen like the people outside [in] the country are.” Obama frequently found himself halting during his speech to accommodate the overwhelming amount of response to his remarks.

Linton Weeks asserts that the overtures of applause are political in tone rather than a reliable barometer of how the message is being received in real time. This suggests that some of those in attendance may be reacting to what they hear based on predetermined political allegiances or agendas, such as Eckart discovered during Reagan’s address. Additionally, Weeks sheds light on an infestation of paid “claquers,” who appear at such political gatherings as salaried partisans with strict orders to represent special interests.

Not all the applause is random. During President Ronald Reagan’s 1982 SOTU address, Democratic congressman Dennis Eckart of Ohio discovered that the Republicans had directly instructed their members to clap raucously after certain key remarks. Curious at the seemingly coordinated effort, Eckart crossed the aisle and discovered that the Republican copies of Reagan’s remarks were peppered with specific applause cues. Democrats turned the tables the following year, when they sought to cause confusion by breaking into applause at random intervals.

President Obama is no stranger to the kind of divisive cynicism that reared its head when he remarked that he had “no more campaigns to run.” A sect of dissenters took this opportunity to applaud sarcastically, drawing attention from the entire audience. Obama was quick to play it off with a jab of his own, but both sides came off tarnished from this exchange. Though Obama reiterated his desire for internal bickering within Congress to cease, it is clear petty divisions remain alive and well in Washington. From that perspective, it is difficult to regard this applause as anything but competitive showmanship that ultimately distracts from the President’s address.

On the other hand, mass applause is a persuasive form of consensus-driven communication.  Perhaps it is not insignificant that one hears the raw percussion of the majority almost as much they heard President Obama during the State of the Union. Though the gallery of listeners gathers to listen the President speak, they also demand to be heard themselves.

Yet after years of political gridlock and inbred division, the question begs to be asked.  Which of our politicians are in Washington to make noise, and which of them are there to listen?