On Bush And Communications
John Fund says he’s not doing well getting the word out:
Everyone has long known the president is no Pericles. One of Mr. Bush’s friends cheerfully admitted to me once that “every morning George gets up and arm-wrestles the English language all day. He often loses.” Many bright people are inarticulate. Albert Einstein was dyslexic, and his lectures in both English and German were said to be full of malapropisms and gaffes. Christopher “Mad Dog” Russo, a host at sports radio station WFAN in New York, is famous for his synaptic misfirings, but his depth of sports knowledge is encyclopedic and he holds an audience with style and panache.
Indeed, Jacob Weisberg, the editor of Slate.com, who has compiled the definitive collection of verbal presidential flubs he calls “Bushisms,” says Mr. Bush’s verbal difficulties appear to represent “some kind of linguistic deficit akin to dyslexia that does not indicate a lack of mental capacity per se. Bush also compensates with his nonverbal acumen.” Voltaire long ago observed that common sense is both more rare and more desirable in leaders than mere intelligence.
That said, Mr. Bush’s failure to articulate his policies is helping to drive down his approval ratings and to fuel suspicions that he is intellectually insular. Most damning is Mr. Scarborough’s observation that Mr. Bush’s battles with the English language are getting “worse with age.” When he reviewed tapes of Mr. Bush as Texas governor, Mr. Scarborough says, he saw “a funny, self-assured public figure who inspires confidence. But these days, the mere opening of Mr. Bush’s mouth makes many GOP loyalists shake in their tasseled loafers.”
Some observers date the growing hesitancy and lack of clarity in Mr. Bush’s public presentations to the deteriorating situation in Iraq and Hurricane Katrina. “Everything he does now, he is allowed no margin of error on these kinds of gaffes,” says Lawrence O’Donnell, a former Democratic congressional staffer. “If Iraq was a real policy success, that guy could fall down everywhere he went and he would be getting standing ovations.”
And that is the fundamental issue in the debate over Bush’s Brain. Iraq is not going well, and when the going is tough, a president needs to be able to make a clear, vigorous defense of his policies. That clearly isn’t happening right now, and the doubts about the president are starting to grow and threaten to further limit his effectiveness.
Right on cue, Bush held a media session today. Here’s what he said about Iraq:
Frustrated? Sometimes I’m frustrated. Rarely surprised. Sometimes I’m happy. This is — but war is not a time of joy. These aren’t joyous times. These are challenging times, and they’re difficult times, and they’re straining the psyche of our country. I understand that. You know, nobody likes to see innocent people die. Nobody wants to turn on their TV on a daily basis and see havoc wrought by terrorists. And our question is, do we have the capacity and the desire to spread peace by confronting these terrorists, and supporting those who want to live in liberty? That’s the question. And my answer to that question is, we must. We owe it to future generations to do so.
And this, for a lighter moment:
Q And would you campaign against Senator Joe Lieberman, whose Republican candidate may support you, but he supports you, too, on Iraq?
THE PRESIDENT: I’m going to stay out of Connecticut. (Laughter.)
Q You were born there.
THE PRESIDENT: Shhh. (Laughter.) I may be the only person — the only presidential candidate who never carried the state in which he was born. Do you think that’s right, Herman? Of course, you would have researched that and dropped it out for everybody to see — particularly since I dissed that just ridiculous looking outfit. (Laughter.)
It surprises me that Bush doesn’t get more credit for his personal charm; he used to, when he was first running in 2000. He’s really a pretty witty guy, when you get down to it. Well-spoken? Heavens, no…but quick with the witticisms…
Too much focus by Mr. Fund on Bush’s lack of an ability to consistently convey his message clearly – on the ‘Bushisms’, that is. I find the fault more with the program of communication that the White House has employed.
There seems to be no method to their communication madness. There is no systematic approach to getting the message out, to describing and defining the policy and the objectives. Thus most communication comes off as (and is) defensive and reactionary rather than confident and strategic.
I completely agree – sometimes there seems to be an effort to get out in front, but it always seems to die away quickly…
Bush so rarely speaks informally that it’s easy enough to forget his easy rapport with people. Re: communication: it’s just not an easy idea to get people to assent to. A not insignificant part of it is that he didn’t caution people that Iraq could be very, very difficult (he made some pro forma statements, but it wasn’t enough to counterbalance the assurances of ease coming from other quarters out of and in his administration). The upshot is that people don’t feel they agreed to this.
It’s really quite amazing what passes for wit these days. “Did you just ask me a question that someone might be interested in knowing the answer to? I shall deflect the question. Oh, and you there, you’re clothes look stupid! Hardy har har”. Doesn’t pretty much every holy book ever guard against those that doublespeak or are “clever speakers” (no irony intended I’m sure), etc.?
Wit
Yeah, Mike, amazing that a president wouldn’t answer a question like that. Why, before Bush, anyone would have answered that. He clearly has ruined the country by not telling us whether he’s campaigning for Joe Lieberman.
Good lord man, are you always such a stick in the mud, or is that just your (incredibly tiring and banal) internet personality?
Ryan: Did I compare Bush to anyone? Did I claim he has ruined the country? This country is teetering on the brink because of our history (not specifically because of Bush), but we can make the appropriate changes necessary to keep strong. One of them might be to expect more of our politicians and quit electing a** clowns who know nothing about giving direct answers. Yes, the question was asinine, so I suppose an asinine answer might be expected…
As for my banality, well, I’ve been forced into a role I don’t particularly enjoy since I’m apparently the resident anti-semite even though I dislike all organized religious dogma equally (I may understand why some think I’m a New Anti-Semite, but that’s a discussion I would be more than willing to defend myself from rather than just accept being labeled as such [if you put me in a category, tell me why]). Regardless, yes, I dislike Bush, but if you’re going to claim he’s witty, at least quote something that shows this, not something which includes the phrase “particularly since I dissed that just ridiculous looking outfit”. That is frat-boy humor, not wit. That’s not to say I didn’t laugh, but I’m not going to claim that when Dane Cook talks about shooting lasers out of his co** he’s being witty…
Sorry, (no, seriously), sorry, that the only thing I can do is look for 60% appropiate adjectives, rather than 100%…I suppose that’s a testament to much of what Mark writes, but I’m not going to cheerlead for Mark (unless he makes a really good point), y’all do a good enough job of that. My goal when commenting is to keep him in check by pointing out what I consider inconsistencies, not that he cares or anything. This is really the only place I comment regularly and where I actually get any positive response (it happens occasionally). I think I was less of an a** when he was posting a lot about the economy. Whatever happened to that anyway? The right hasn’t really mentioned that of late…
Besides, my first comment was really just to have an excuse to include the link about yesterday’s topic…it’s in the wrong thread though.
“Good lord man, are you always such a stick in the mud, or is that just your (incredibly tiring and banal) internet personality?”
I think it’s obvious what Mikey is in reality, Ryan -a callow and feckless youth who poses in an intellectual guise, but always exposes his many shortcomings as soon as he posts some tiresome and/or incomprehensible rant that he mistakenly thinks is witty bon mots. Mark is to commended for having the patience of Job in actually responding to such idiocy on a regular basis.
Can’t speak for the ‘right’ but the reason I’ve not written on the economy lately is that there have been far more compelling matters (i.e., Israel/Hezbollah, Lieberman/Lamont) that have grabbed my attention. I’m an economist by education, not profession, but I’ll continue to comment on it when a story grabs me…
“One of them might be to expect more of our politicians and quit electing a** clowns who know nothing…”
Clearly, a classic case of projection here.
“This is really the only place I comment regularly and where I actually get any positive response…”
What a surprise – and the only “positive” feedback (what you define as positive is actually amused annoyance at a fool’s errands) you ever get on this site is from our gracious host, who’s too polite to do the sane thing and ban your witless posturings forever. But don’t worry, your time is coming…
Now, Dmac, you know I don’t ban anyone for being witless (if so, I’m sure some of my regulars would ask me to ban myself). We wouldn’t want to turn this place into some firedoglake/Kos/Huff’n'Puff joint where only folks who agreed with us were allowed to comment.
I just love the way it works at Kos – substantive points that disagree with the ‘progressive’ line? ‘Troll’!…
I have no truck with anyone who disagrees with my (or your) viewpoints, Mark – as long as they make a coherent point. Witness the exchanges I’ve had in the past with intelligent commenters like Peter and Ryan (and yes, even Fargus). The difference is when a commenter keeps going off the rails at will, and starts exhibiting a kind of “Tourette’s Sydrome,” where they just spew out bile and idiocies at will, without any regard to how it actually plays in the real world. Self – editing would be a highly effective practice for these folks, and they’d tend to make more coherent arguments in the future.
Bonus points for using “I have no truck with”…I love that phrase…
Cool! What do I win? A walk with the beagle sometime? My heart trembles at the thought…