Communication Nation

Settling the Birther Issue--Again

2011-04-22T11:49:00.001-04:00

FactCheck.org recently addressed Donald Trump's recent birther crusade against President Obama. Here's the analysis.

25th Anniversary of Challenger Explosion & President Reagan's Speeches

2011-01-28T11:09:00.007-05:00

Here's a link to my post from five years ago about Reagan's Challenger rhetoric.

President Obama's Second State of the Union Speech

2011-01-27T13:07:00.003-05:00

My take on the President's speech can be found here and here.

Tucson Shooting, Political Rhetoric, and Obama Memorial Speech

2011-01-17T06:51:00.003-05:00

My various takes on the tragic shootings in Tucscon, the role of political rhetoric both before and after the attack can be found here and here, along with a preview and reaction to President Obama's speech memorializing the victims at the University of Arizona.

Top 5 Political Communication Moments of 2010

2010-12-31T19:05:00.005-05:00

Another year, another power shift in Washington. Here's this year's list with explanations, counting down from 5 to 1:

5. Christine O’Donnell’s “I’m not a witch” ad: This ad and the controversy it addresses was the death knell of both this Tea Party-backed candidate and GOP hopes of a Senate takeover. O’Donnell symbolized the appeal and risks of pushing the envelope of “outsiderism.” Her novelty garnered more media coverage than any other candidate but, despite her best efforts to avoid the press, that coverage led to her undoing.

4. President Obama’s Oval Office Speech About the BP Oil Spill: The biggest environmental disaster in U.S. history vexed the administration for the entire summer of 2010. This nationally televised prime time address, the first Oval Office speech of the Obama’s presidency, showed the limits of Obama’s rhetorical prowess in changing the national media narrative, a problem that would plague the President throughout the year.

3. President Obama’s Q&A Appearance at GOP Baltimore Retreat: More than anything, this high stakes, high profile gambit allowed Obama to regain his footing after the August Tea Party rallies of 2009 and the Brown thunderclap in Massachusetts. Demonstrating boldness and a command of the issues, Obama emerged once again as the best politician in town, gaining confidence and momentum to battle and win on his signature health care reform--the largest domestic legislation in decades.

2. Scott Brown-Martha Coakley Final Debate - Although some attributed Brown’s monumental victory to Coakley’s weaknesses as a candidate, those who interpreted the upset as a harbinger of anti-Democratic fervor were closer to the mark. However, Brown also came to represent the public’s refusal to fully embrace the Tea Party philosophy as his moderate votes have already put a target on his back.

And the top political communication moment of 2010 was…

1. Citizens United - Some may take issue with dubbing a decision by the august U.S. Supreme Court on the same level with political speeches and debates. However, this party-line decision on campaign financing freed corporations to inject unlimited amounts of cash into political campaigns. The full ramifications are not yet known, but everyone seems to agree that this is a big deal.

Happy New Year!

Cooper Union as Rhetorical Artifact?

2010-10-02T22:57:00.007-04:00

I'm scheduled to go on sabbatical next semester and have been writing a grant proposal for the research project I'll be working on. The project involves the Cooper Union Institute in NYC, which I've written about previously in posts about Lincoln and Manhattan. Here's the proposal:

The project is a rhetorical analysis and criticism of the Cooper Union Great Hall, the site of President Abraham Lincoln’s historic 1860 speech as well as speeches by other important orators. The hall and its accompanying exhibits are located within The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art in New York City. As described on the Cooper Union website, these orators included “rebels and reformers, poets and presidents” including Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and early advocates for civil rights, workers’ rights, and women’s suffrage. However, most people associate Cooper Union's rhetorical significance with Lincoln alone. The Great Hall represents something quite rare--a monument dedicated to political oratory and social change rhetoric. This raises important questions worthy of rhetorical analysis. How does Cooper Union represent the acts and purposes of oratory? Does the Great Hall celebrate all speakers the same? If not, are certain advocates marginalized or privileged and how do the exhibits’ use of language and images contribute to such outcomes? Does the Cooper Union celebrate its rhetorical history or subordinate it, or both? In what ways does it reflect and participate in the long standing debate about the role of rhetoric in society?

This project engages and contributes to a growing body of scholarly literature studying the rhetorical effects and strategies found within the images and words at museums (Zagacki & Gallagher, 2009; King, 2006; Dickinson, Ott, & Aoki, 2006; Newbury, 2005) and public memorials (Blair, 2007; Grider, 2007; Wright, 2005). Although the Cooper Union Great Hall is not technically a museum or memorial, the Hall and its exhibits perform the same important work of contributing to public memory. Other scholars have published rhetorical analyses of Lincoln’s Cooper Union speech, but I have found no studies of Cooper Union itself as a rhetorical artifact. Therefore, this study would provide a fresh contribution to my field’s literature and deepen awareness of the cultural and historical significance of this site. Also, because the analysis would focus on both images and text, it would contribute to the growing body of research on visual rhetoric. The ultimate goal for this project is the writing of a work of rhetorical criticism that would be presented at the 2012 National Communication Association Convention and, after receiving and incorporating feedback from peer scholars, submitted for journal publication.

Works Cited

Blair, Carole, and Neil Michel. "The AIDS Memorial Quilt and the Contemporary Culture of Public Commemoration." Rhetoric & Public Affairs 10.4 (2007): 595-626.

Dickinson, Greg, Brian L. Ott, and Eric Aoki. "Spaces of Remembering and Forgetting: The Reverent Eye/I at the Plains Indian Museum." Communication & Critical/Cultural Studies 3.1 (2006): 27-47.

Grider, Nicholas. "'Faces of the Fallen' and the dematerialization of US war memorials." Visual Communication 6.3 (2007): 265-279.

Newbury, Darren. "'Lest we forget': photography and the presentation of history at the Apartheid Museum, Gold Reef City, and the Hector Pieterson Museum, Soweto." Visual Communication 4.3 (2005): 259-295.

King, Stephen A. "Memory, Mythmaking, and Museums: Constructive Authenticity and the Primitive Blues Subject." Southern Communication Journal 71.3 (2006): 235-250.

Wright, Elizabethada A. "Rhetorical Spaces in Memorial Places: The Cemetery as a Rhetorical Memory Place/Space." RSQ: Rhetoric Society Quarterly 35.4 (2005): 51-81.

Zagacki, Kenneth S., and Victoria J. Gallagher. "Rhetoric and Materiality in the Museum Park at the North Carolina Museum of Art." 171-191. National Communication Association, 2009.

President Obama's 2nd Oval Office Speech: End of Iraq War Combat

2010-08-31T12:12:00.005-04:00

After avoiding the Oval Office address for 15 months, President Obama is now giving his second such speech in two months. In June, he discussed the BP oil spill from that historic setting. Tonight, the subject is the end of combat operation in the seven year Iraq war. Here is an interesting take on whether Obama should even deliver this as a high profile rhetoric event. I would agree that the President's political focus should be on the economy. On the other hand, it also takes the spotlight, for one night anyway, away from the jobs numbers and shines it on a fulfilled campaign promise. The topic also allows Obama to transcend the nasty street fighting of the midterm campaign and appear presidential and serious, which, despite the silliness of much political rhetoric and commentary these days, is something many Americans still crave in their elected leaders.

Politician & Celebrity Gaffes and the Role of Communication Technology

2010-07-13T23:11:00.002-04:00

My reaction to Jeffrey Zaslow's recent Wall Street Journal piece can be found here.

Obama's First Oval Office Speech

2010-06-20T07:10:00.007-04:00

On Tuesday, President Barack Obama chose the gulf oil spill crisis as being of sufficient gravity to justify his first use of the Oval Office for a nationally televised speech. Until this time, Obama has relied on prime time press conferences and high profile speeches in front of live audiences to get his message out. With the oil spill nearing its two-month anniversary and public anger mounting, the President needed to counter perceptions of a sluggish response and detached manner related to the crisis. Going in, I predicted that the President needed to reflect the public's anger and channel their helplessness (interview can be found about half through this mp3 link). For various reasons, the speech has been criticized by those on the left and right, and, most pervasively, by media commentators. And to prove that I don't echo the vast media echo chamber, I have to disagree. It just was not that bad of a speech, especially upon a second viewing. As I mention in my initial reaction, it wasn't perfect by a long shot--some no doubt looked for a more detailed flogging of BP. Also, more details are always nice but can also unnecessarily limit options for the President in pursuing policy, so I understand that choice. Anyway, for whatever it's worth, some additional links can be found here and here.

Mark Souder Resignation

2010-05-24T15:00:00.004-04:00

Last week, Indiana was buzzing about Rep. Mark Souder's resignation from Congress. Souder, yet another Christian conservative "family values" politician caught committing adultery, comes across as emotional but not willing to take complete responsibility for his actions or his hypocrisy. He blames his "all consuming" job for making his life abnormal and depriving of him of time for family, church, and community. However, if part of the reason the job is "all consuming" is because you're spending time having trysts with a part-time staffer, it's a bit off a hard sell. Throw in the YouTube footage of Souder and his mistress Tracy Jackson taping an abstinence video and, well, the jokes sort of write themselves. For example, we don't know for sure, but Souder & Jackson may end up the first illicit lovers in YouTube history to have made both a sex video *and* a no-sex video. Anyway, my additional reactions to all of this can be found here .

Tax & Spend Politics: Bizarro Rhetoric at its Best

2010-04-15T14:09:00.007-04:00

Happy Tax Day! Why is it happy? Well, according to the non-partisan Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, "Middle-income Americans are now paying federal taxes at or near historically low levels." The linked article also reports that "Even conservative economic analysts acknowledge that there really is no basis for middle- and working-class Americans to believe that they're suddenly paying more." Hurrah! We've achieved bipartisan consensus on taxes, an issue that is usually rife with political divisiveness. So, once again, Happy Tax Day, America! In fact, a parade is passing through Washington DC on this very day to celebrate our good fortune and thank the President who generated much of these tax savings.

What? It's not a parade? It's a rally? Oh, you mean, like a Woodstock kind of rally--peace, love, and reduced taxes? No? It's a protest rally? Why are they ruining Happy Tax Day with some random protest? Oh...wait, it's an ANTI-TAX protest... So let me see if I get this--they're against lower taxes? Oh, they *think* they're paying higher taxes, or will *someday* be paying higher taxes, or... My head is starting to hurt.

Here we go again. Republican and Teabaggers' annual descent into Wonderland on the issue of taxation and budget deficits. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the current administration has reduced taxes and passed a health care reform plan that's fiscally responsible, the threadbare, ragged banner of "tax and spend" rhetoric is waved again. This time, the arguments are based on speculative future taxation that has not yet occurred but "eventually" will. This is the drum being beaten today by the courageous Karl Rove (his memoir is titled Courage and Consequence so he must be courageous, right?). Captain Courage writes that increased levies against the pharmaceutical, insurance, and medical industries "eventually will hit ordinary Americans" and that "higher business taxes are eventually paid by those who buy goods and services." When one removes Rove's crutch of eventualities, what he's actually admitting is something like this: "Okay, taxes on ordinary Americans have not increased at all, but I'm actually concerned about tax hikes on rich people and big business, but I know have to somehow talk about ordinary Americans, so I'll talk about future taxes that don't exist and therefore can't be denied." Well, where's the courage in dodgy rhetoric like that?

What's driving people like Rove bananas is that, this time, Obama and the Democrats have refused to give in to the usual rhythms of tax and spend politics. After the Reagan administration left the country deep in red ink, President Clinton did the what seemed like the responsible thing and pursued deficit reduction policies in lieu of major program initiatives. The result was a budget surplus. In comes George W. Bush and, eight years later, after tax cuts for the wealthy and military adventures, the surplus was long gone and the red ink was back. The expectation by many conservatives was that Obama, like Clinton, would "do the right thing," be forced to capitulate his policy ambitions to the tax and spend cycle, and pursue only "small ball" initiatives. He didn't. He pushed for comprehensive health care reform and won. Consciously or unconsciously, Obama and Congressional Democrats finally recognized that if they did nothing to disrupt the existing rhythms of tax and spend politics, they would never achieve significant policy reform again. With the stroke of a pen, Obama ended the cycle of "we spend/you tax (or be paralyzed by budget deficits). Democrats now have health care reform and tax cuts, and that reality forces their opponents to conjure up the Ghost of Taxes to Come as this year's campaign bogeyman. Thank God we have Captain Courage to protect us.

Health Care Debate & Misinformation

2010-03-21T07:47:00.004-04:00

After more than a year of debate, today is the day of the historic health care reform vote in Congress, and the outcome is still unknown. Plenty of drama in the capitol in the next 24 hours. Here's my take on the public debate and how many citizens increasingly obtain their health care information from advocacy groups.

Lincoln's Cooper Union Speech Sesquicentennial

2010-02-28T23:08:00.011-05:00

Yesterday, Abraham Lincoln's speech at Cooper Union celebrated its 150th anniversary. Although not as well known as the Gettysburg Address, his 2nd Inaugural, or even the Lincoln-Douglass debates, the speech delivered at Manhattan's Cooper Union Institute may, in the big picture, be more important.

The speech took place during the 1860 presidential election. Democrats accused antislavery Republicans, such as Lincoln, radicalism. Senator Stephen Douglass, the likely Democratic nominee, supported the concept of “popular sovereignty," which argued that the Constitution did not authorize the U.S. Congress to stop slavery from spreading into territories and that the residents of the territories should decide the slavery issue for themselves.

Eastern Republicans eagerly searched for a Western candidates with broad public appeal to take on Douglass. According to Lincoln scholar, Harold Holzer, the Young Men’s Central Republican Union invited several Western politicians to speak at Cooper Union--a lecture series that essentially served as auditions for the Republican nomination. And that is how, on February 27, 1860, Abraham Lincoln found himself in a basement auditorium facing a curious audience.

The Illinois "rail splitter" made, to put it mildly, an unimpressive first Impression. One observer described him as
“an awkward specimen indeed” with “one of the legs of his trousers...up about two inches above his shoe; his hair was disheveled & stuck out like rooster’s feathers; his arms much longer than his sleeves.” While he looked pretty bad, Lincoln sounded even worse. His voice was described as “thin” and “squeaky," which, according to the New York Herald had a “frequent tendency to dwindle into a sharp & unpleasant sound.”

Nevertheless, ninety minutes later, Lincoln found himself on the receiving end of thunderous applause and cheers. The speech was a triumph. The New York Tribune praised it as “one of the most convincing political arguments ever made in this city” and the Cooper Union address eventually became known as “the speech that made Abraham Lincoln president.”

So what did Lincoln say in this speech that garnered such a strong reaction? The genius conceit is that much of the oration addressed a single sentence favoring popular sovereignty uttered by rival Douglass in an 1859 speech in Columbus, Ohio. That line read: “Our fathers, when they framed the government under which we live, understood this question just as well, and even better, than we do now.” According to Douglass: the Founders created a nation divided into free and slave states and each state could decide the slavery issue for itself. Under the Constitution, Douglass maintained, the federal government could not do anything about it. Douglass stressed the need to defer to those sacred founders.

Lincoln boldly agreed with Douglass on one point--those who created our government did understand slavery issues better than the people of 1860. Harold Holzer, in his book, Lincoln at Cooper Union describes Lincoln's speech research and preparation in addressing that issue. Lincoln, huddled alone in the Springfield State Library, with no research assistants, scholars, or clerical staff to aid him, pored over legislative histories and congressional debates. He found that, of the 39 signers of the U.S. Constitution, 21 voted in favor of federal regulation of slavery. Fifteen others expressed sympathy with the sentiment of ending slavery expansion. Therefore, Lincoln contended that 36 out of the 39 “fathers” who “framed the government under which we live” supported Lincoln’s position. The Republican added: “This shows that, in their understanding, [nothing] in the Constitution, properly forbade Congress to prohibit slavery in the federal territory; else their oath to support the Constitution would have constrained them to oppose the prohibition.” He continues this methodical and logical argument building for 20 paragraphs, all the while constructing a meticulous and clever case against slavery expansion.

Lincoln brings passion to the end of his oration where he declares that “groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong, [is] vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead man…let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it.”

One hundred and fifty years ago, the Cooper Union speech bolstered the political prospects of both Lincoln and his party. Its success was due primarily to clever persuasion strategies and exhaustive research. But there’s more to it than that. The speech also has been called the “right makes might” speech because of that final passage. However, that nickname ignores another critical term in that coda. Faith. “Let us have faith that right makes might and in that faith, let us…dare to do our duty.” Lincoln invested months studying dusty books and gathering his evidence because he had faith in what the Constitution means--a movement toward more freedom and equality. And in crafting a speech that reflected that meaning, Lincoln also reconstituted that meaning for his generation and for ours. So, one lesson that we can take away from Lincoln at Cooper Union is that, especially in difficult times, we cannot lose faith in the Constitution. Even in times of cynicism, polarization, apathy, and dysfunction, when, as Lincoln said, too many leaders are “groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong,” we must remember the trajectory of our Constitution is always a forward one.

A Rhetorical Tribute to John Murtha

2010-02-08T15:27:00.003-05:00

Rep. John Murtha (D-PN) died today at the age of 77. A powerful congressman and respected military hawk, Murtha's sudden and dramatic call for a troop withdrawal from Iraq in 2005 stunned the political establishment. Although Murtha's coziness with defense contractors often raised ethical questions, his Iraq address was a lightning bolt strike against the war's legitimacy. He memorably described Iraq as a "flawed policy wrapped in illusion." The full text of that speech can be found in this earlier post from November of 2005.

Obama's First State of the Union Speech

2010-01-28T22:54:00.004-05:00

My take on last night's State of the Union Speech can be found here.

Remembering Martin Luther King, Jr.: Speech at Holt Street Baptist Church

2010-01-18T16:10:00.013-05:00

To celebrate Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. this year, I had my students read his Holt Street Church speech at the start of the Montgomery bus boycott. The speech can be found here. It seems like students get inundated with "I Have a Dream" on this day each year, even in non-communication classes. So I went with this speech from early in his career as a civil rights activist when King was just emerging as the powerful voice of the civil rights movement. King, then minister of Dexter Avenue Baptist church, was only 26 years old when he was elected chair of the Montgomery Improvement Association and tapped to deliver this speech.

King starts the speech vaguely innocuous, stating that the crowd was there to "apply [their] citizenship" and to "get the situation corrected." In the second paragraph, he defines the problem that needs correcting--the intimidation and humiliation of blacks on the city buses--but doesn't use the word "segregation." The problem had existed for some time but became urgent with the arrest of Rosa Parks for her now legendary refusal to surrender her seat to a white person.

How does the arrest of a single African-American suddenly render bus segregation an urgent problem? Because of the quality of Parks's character. King describes her as "one of the finest citizens in Montgomery" and, using his trademark parallelism, adds that “nobody can doubt the boundless outreach of her integrity....nobody can doubt the height of her character....nobody can doubt the depth of her Christian commitment and devotion to the teachings of Jesus.” For King, if such an exemplary Christian person could be thrown off a bus and arrested, then the system in Montgomery and elsewhere must be broken. This passage also introduces the theme of Christianity, which plays an important role throughout the speech.

Starting in paragraph 5, King makes the case justifying the right to protest. Here, he addresses the speech to a national audience for the first time, addressing the general public apprehension about black activism. In seeking to connect with a wide audience and relieve their fears, King grounds the right to protest in Christianity and American democracy. He contrasts the American right to protest with what would occur "behind the iron curtains of a Communistic nation"--a timely and patriotic cold war shot that would resonate well in 1955. In paragraph 7, King reaffirms the Christian and democratic themes by explicitly connecting the protestors with the U.S. Supreme Court, justice, God, and Jesus. My students seemed to like this passage in particular:

"And we are not wrong, we are not wrong in what we are doing. If we are wrong, then the Supreme Court of this Nation is wrong. If we are wrong, the Constitution of the United States is wrong. If we are wrong, God Almighty is wrong. If we are wrong, Jesus of Nazareth was merely a Utopian dreamer and never came down to earth. If we are wrong, justice is a lie."

In paragraph 8, he explains that Christian love must include the concept of justice. Justice, King argued, is "love in application" and is needed for "correcting that which would work against love." This neatly ties back to the beginning of the speech and King's stated purpose of correcting a problem. The minister assures African-Americans that good Christians can participate in a bus boycott--and other acts of civil rights protest.

The speech is a great example of a creative yet tidy argument aimed at multiple audiences. It also shows King as a gifted speechwriter early in his career, years before the triumph of the March on Washington. In fact, a few phrases appear in both the Holt Street speech and the 1963 "I Have a Dream" speech--his use of Amos 5:24 ("until justice runs down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream") and the phrase "long night of captivity." The bus boycott wouldn't end for another year and only after a U.S. Supreme Court decision, but this address surely inspired and reassured blacks at the critical beginning of the Montgomery protest.

From a teaching standpoint, what was great was listening to my students identify numerous passages that they felt still resonated with a contemporary audience and with the students themselves. King's meshing of Christianity and justice should hold an special appeal for students whose Catholic college supports a mission of social justice. Without any prompting from me, they found the speech's message useful and relevant to an example of oppression in their own community--the gay-bashing cartoon that recently appeared in The Observer, the Notre Dame-Saint Mary's student newspaper. The students' use of King's words to challenge and condemn the hateful cartoon is exactly the type of thoughtful and engaged reaction that this day should be all about,

CommNat's Top Five Political Communication Moments of 2009

2009-12-30T14:22:00.002-05:00

It was a year dominated by what might politely be called "strongly felt" political rhetoric. Disclaimer: This list deals exclusively with U.S. political communicators.

Honorable Mentions: Sen. Ben Nelson's announcement of support for health care reform bill; President Obama's health care reform speech to a Joint Session of Congress; Obama's economic message to a Joint Session of Congress; Obama 12/29 public statement in response to attempted terrorist attack aboard Northwest airplane ); and DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano's "the system worked" remarks in response to the Northwest incident. (These last two demonstrating why end-of-year lists should actually be done at the *end* of the year and not in mid-November.)

And now, the top five with brief explanations:

5. Gov. Sarah Palin Resignation Announcement. The speech was analyzed in an earlier post and can be found here. The Alaska governor's abrupt and baffling public statement prior to leaving office made for fascinating political theatre but also represented the opening move in what could be a highly unorthodox 2012 campaign strategy. The "going rogue" brand goes beyond the tried-and-true "outsider" strategy by suggesting that even the outsiders are in on the game. This is mavericky-ness that borders on political nihilism. We'll see how it plays.

4. Sen. Joe Lieberman Announces Intention to Filibuster Health Care Bill. Health care dominated the first year of the Obama administration and, with the odds looking good for final passage of comprehensive reform, Lieberman's filibuster threat played an enormous role in shaping what would not be in the final Senate bill, namely a public insurance option or a Medicare buy-in for people 55 or older. Other Democratic senators may have been inclined to vote against those options but Lieberman's public vow to filibuster forced Democratic concessions on two huge issues.

3. Rick Santelli CNBC "Tea Party" Rant. One can debate whether this on-air rant by CNBC correspondent Santelli was a spontaneous populist revelation, a publicity stunt, or the opening gambit of a massive and calculated right-wing political strategy. And, in many ways, it doesn't really matter. The Tea Party Movement (and perhaps the future Tea Party Party?), last summer's health care town hall protests, and even Rep. Joe Wilson's "You lie!" outburst all found their roots in Santelli. Santelli's February 19 riff kicked off an angry populism that resonated both with citizens disenchanted with the President's agenda and a news media desperate for a compelling counter-narrative to the compelling and popular Obama.

2. President Obama Afghanistan speech. Another classic Obama balancing act. Obama's address to the cadets at West Point laid out a controversial new strategy for the war in Afghanistan. The announcement of 30,000 more troops to the region with a specified date for starting withdrawal caused consternation among both hawks and doves. A transcript and video can be found here.

But transcending them all...

1. President Obama's Inaugural Address. The first African-American President. That historic heft alone warrants the top spot. But go watch or read the speech here and you'll find early evidence of much of what the President would say and do throughout his first year in office. Obama asserts his preference for taking on big issues with "big plans," as later seen in his stimulus and health care initiatives. Also, one sees his core mission to break down rhetorically what he sees as false and unproductive dichotomies ("As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.")--a perspective that would resurface at Notre Dame, Oslo, and before Joint Sessions of Congress. Obama expresses his willingness--to the exasperation of some--to positively engage foreign foes ("we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist"). Also present are those ideas that would later surprise--and disappoint--his more progressive followers. For example, the first specific issue he mentions in the inaugural is the war on terrorism, which foreshadows the decision to add 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. He refuses to fully condemn Wall Street and free market capitalism ("Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched."). More than just celebrating a historical day, this speech reveals a presidential philosophy to which Obama--for better or worse--has remained true.

Well, there it is. Feel free to respond with any noteworthy omissions or other reactions. Happy New Year!

Unconventional Communication

2009-11-30T23:44:00.005-05:00

True story. A few weeks ago, I presented a paper at a conference in Chicago. It was a typical academic panel situation--four presenters, a chair, and a respondent. What was not typical, at least not in my experience, was the rude behavior of several individuals in the room. The source of this rudeness? New communication technology.

At one point during the paper presentations, a loud cell phone went off and, rather than simply turning it off, the audience member abruptly rose from his seat and rushed out of the conference room to take the call. Okay, I admit, this is not necessarily uncommon, but it gets worse. One of my fellow presenters insisted on delivering his paper off his laptop. He spent his entire 15 minutes staring at his computer screen, his face partially obscured from the audience's view. Then, during the question-and-answer session, Mr. Laptop literally would type out the questions as they were being asked, resulting in a quiet-but-still-amazingly-distracting clicking noise. And when he would ask a question of another panelist, he would, of course, type out the person's answer rather than engaging in actual eye contact with his professional peer.

The corker of the session, however, was the panel chair. For those not familiar with the ritual of academic conferences, the chair is the individual who introduces the panelists and panel topic to the audience. Needless to say, the chair should exhibit interest in and enthusiasm for the program that she's chairing. Well, our chair spent the entire 75 minutes...texting. Right in front of us and not even trying to hide it. Why should the audience listen when they see the panel organizer engaged in constant text messaging? Isn't that just wrong?

So, these wonders of our new communication technology age--cell phones, laptops, and texting--while all very useful, have really done a number on our ideas of appropriate communication behavior. Okay, so that's not a particularly fresh or revolutionary observation. However, the punch line to all of this, if you haven't guessed it yet, is that this ill-mannered behavior occurred at the annual convention of the...wait for it...National COMMUNICATION Association, an organization whose mission includes "the application of competent communication to improve the quality of human life and relationships." From what I witnessed at this year's NCA convention, we have a long way to go in achieving that mission. Or, as the kids would tweet, EPIC FAIL.

AG Eric Holder on Guantanamo Bay Detainees

2009-10-15T23:58:00.004-04:00

Interesting interview with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder on NPR today, which can be read or listened to here. He echoes some points I raised back in May as to the weak arguments raised in opposition to holding some of the Gitmo detainees in the U.S. pending trial. Holder stated: "Some of the concerns that have been expressed by at least some in Congress seem illogical to me....We have in our prison system now people who are terrorists, people who are unbelievably bad criminals — and they are no threat to the surrounding community." Exactly. The concerns are not just illogical but, as I explained in an earlier post, just plain wussy. And hypocritical--especially coming from those who also ordinarily thump their chests about American exceptionalism.

It looks like the timidity finally may be waning. Today, House Democrats turned back a Republican effort to block the transfer of any prisoners to the U.S. for trial. There's absolutely no reason why we should expect other countries to take in all of the Gitmo detainees and bear the entire burden of our foreign policy misstep.

Obama "Back to School" Speech and Health Care Address to Congress

2009-09-10T16:20:00.006-04:00

My pre-speech and post-speech analysis can be found here.

Guantanamo Update

2009-08-31T16:00:00.007-04:00

A recent Washington Post article on the Obama administration's ongoing efforts to close the Guantanamo Bay military prison can be found here. This is an issue I've blogged about a couple of times. What's interesting to me is: (1) Despite the skepticism and cynicism about the President's promise to close the embarrassing facility, the administration is quietly making great strides toward achieving its goal, and (2) Other countries around the globe are demonstrating more courage than those "tough on terrorism" U.S. leaders who are crying "NIMBY" when it comes to dealing with the Guantanamo detainees. Note in the article that foreign leaders WANT to do something to help Obama on this issue and that's precisely because the President has improved our standing in the world by doing the right thing on Guantanamo. On this issue, Obama is exactly right--our country's principled stands and hard work can lead to positive, concrete responses from other nations. That's something that's been missing on both ends during this decade.

Twitter and Politics - Part 2 - A Case Study

2009-07-27T07:33:00.001-04:00

Last month, I wrote a post about Twitter as a tool for political communication and the Republican Party's hopes for microblogging as an integral part of its return to power. Since that essay, Twitter has made more headlines in the political world, especially for its international role in facilitating grass-roots protests in Iran and China, although the benefits and perils of Twitter in those cases still generate debate (see Darrell West's HuffPost article on "The Two Faces of Twitter").

So, setting aside for this post, the issue of Twitter as a tool for organizing social protest, another way to study Twitter politics is the old-fashioned way--looking at the utility of the platform for making and circulating political arguments and information. In other words, will Twitter change any minds? Will it influence? Or is it just good for venting?

Pursuing these questions during the past few months, I've been reading a Twitter page that engages almost exclusively in political commentary. The writer, a friend of mine during high school & college years, is a very intelligent guy from an everyday background. His Twitter name is "indyrallen" and he describes himself as a "Christian, conservative, news junkie, systems engineer, cyclist and drive-by political commenter." He probably is the type of smart, articulate, and dedicated conservative whose regular presence on Twitter gives those on the right such hope for that platform. He has 347 followers, and, judging from my random viewing of about 15 of those folks, they seem to be mostly, if not all, fellow conservatives.

After reading "indyrallen" for most of the summer, I have to admit I'm skeptical about Twitter as an effective tool for political advocacy. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a hater. I tweet daily and often about politics. But the platform is quite flawed if one's goal is political persuasion.

First, Twitter's design is problematic. The 140-character limit is the most obvious hindrance. It encourages sound bite logic, generalization, and unsupported claims. One could use multiple tweets to make an argument, but Twitter is usually consumed via a real-time feed consisting of tweets from all of one's followers, so a multi-tweet argument would likely be interrupted by other people's messages. Clicking to the person's profile to read the tweets uninterrupted is possible, but Twitter posts the most recent messages first, so the reader would have to scroll down to the start of the argument and then read up. None of this takes long, but it's well-established that the more levels one has to penetrate to reach online material, the less likely it will be consumed. Twitter does allow the writer to insert links into the tweet, which significantly bolsters the ability to support claims. However, multiple concerns arise here: (1) the previously mentioned extra level of access issue, (2) the entire link address must be inserted, which eats up much of the 140 character allotment, and (3) the writer inevitably morphs from an advocate to a distributor of others' advocacy.

Regarding the quality of argument itself, Twitter leaves much to be desired. In the case of "indyrallen," tweets sometimes are repeated verbatim, or nearly so. The writer has recycled tweets about Obama responding to foreign policy and military challenges with "more adjectives," the prospect of needing a prescription to buy Cheerios, and comparing presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs to "Hogan's Heroes" character Sergeant Schultz. Maybe the pressure to tweet numerous times each day encourages such recycling; nevertheless, excessive repetition injects a bit of staleness into a medium which embraces the immediacy of text messaging.

Such immediacy also leads to carelessness and lessened credibility. Tweets posted in haste and with insufficient context are more likely to offend or cause unwanted controversy (as discussed in my previous post on this subject, or as seen in the cases of Senator Chuck Grassley or CNN journalist Rick Sanchez). In indyrallen's case, misspellings and typos are the culprit, as numerous messages contain errors of haste. The writer seemingly agrees that such mistakes are credibility indicators when he tweets, "Interesting to read the tweets of those calling Palin stupid. Usually full of misspellings and profanity." A more serious credibility issue arises from the writer's reliance on biased sources. In one tweet, he cites a title of a right-wing blog post as a “headline," suggesting the quote comes from a more objective journalistic source.

The succinctness of Twitter makes for easy use but also results in confusion and unanswered questions. For example, indyrallen, on several occasions, states that he is a former liberal who is now a conservative. However, his tweets don't address the reasons behind his conversion, so it comes off as a simple flip-flop rather than a thoughtful political journey. Such a journey, if explained effectively, could significantly bolster the writer's appeal. In one of his most recent tweets, indyrallen writes: "Obama's comments about the [Henry Louis] Gates incident are setting up "no" votes on Healthcare and Cap & Tax as racist." Similar sentiments appear on a number of other conservative Twitter pages. However, without more explanation, this claim lacks coherence. Why would Obama intentionally inject himself into a brewing racial controversy at precisely the same press conference intended to energize his health care policy? In fact, his comment distracted public and media attention away from health care to the point that the President eventually offered a public clarification of his Gates statement. To argue, without reasons or evidence, that Obama was setting up an elaborate "race card" strategy for two major legislative initiatives down the road is tantamount to the type of conspiracy rhetoric that is far too common on both extremes of the political spectrum. What it's not is effective political communication. Again, the writer is a smart guy, but Twitter doesn't give his intelligence much room to operate.

I believe that Twitter can be effective for political organization (as demonstrated in Iran and China) and, to a lesser degree, the distribution of political information (through the use of links, hash tags, and retweets). However, on the 15 conservative Twitter pages that I reviewed, only two recently attempted to organize political action, such as encouraging calls to Congress or participation at an upcoming "tea party" protest. The rest engaged in micro-punditry, or, as indyrallen puts it, "drive-by" political commentary. His metaphor is apt and illustrates the level of superficial engagement that Twitter encourages. I should note that, to his credit, indyrallen employs a level of civility in his tweets often not found in the followers that I sampled.

If Republicans bank heavily on Twitter to reverse their political fortunes, they need to develop the platform into a massive yet nimble organizational force in a way that their opposition won't anticipate. According to The Atlantic, Democrats are already using Twitter for online fundraising. So the GOP doesn't have much time to figure it out. If they don't, Twitter will become not "the central component of GOP resurgence" (see my June 6 post) but rather a high-tech, low-impact echo chamber of sniping and snark.

Sarah Palin's Resignation--Game Changer or Game Over?

2009-07-04T14:04:00.013-04:00

There's been a lot of chatter already (and rightly so) about the stunning, peculiar aspects of Sarah Palin's announcement to resign as Alaska governor. So, let's pull back from the more sensational and overheated analysis and look at this move from the perspective of political strategy and communication. Let's assume, for this essay, that she's not resigning because of an unknown scandal or a personal health issue, or as a permanent withdrawal from politics (although those remain possibilities) and let's look at this as a move to begin preparations and positioning for a 2012 White House run. The question then becomes, from a communication standpoint, what arguments emerge from this move that will bolster her presidential prospects?

My initial answer to this question is: not many. Palin's governorship was of value to her national political fortunes, because it provided evidence of high-level executive experience. It was an effective counterpoint to her running mate John McCain and Democratic nominee Barack Obama, both of whom had none. However, in 2012, Palin's one term (or two-thirds term, as it turns out) as governor of a sparsely populated state will pale in comparison to Obama's stint as President. From an experience standpoint, there's no getting around that, even if Obama's not doing well. So Palin probably knows that the argument made by her status as governor will be weighted very differently next time around. Maybe she's decided that her time would be better spent building political support without the constraints of a demanding, full-time job. Yet, to defeat Obama in 2012, a candidate will need to argue that she or he could have done a better job managing the country. That argument now becomes very difficult for someone who couldn't even finish the job.

So what will Palin do now? She will probably appear on talk shows, write a book, make public appearances, and engage in fundraising. In other words, she'll become either a pundit, a conventional full-time politician, or both. All of those actions will win her political allies and help her sharpen her political communication skills. However, it has the potential to strongly dilute the most unique and appealing aspects of her unique political brand--the fresh-faced outsider from the frontier. In order to make this time politically useful, she must engage in activities that will render her typical of most politicians. Nothing could be worse for Sarah Palin, to become, after all of the trailblazing maverickosity of 2008, the female version of Mitt Romney. On the other hand, if she vanishes from the public scene altogether to reinvent herself and re-emerge in a couple of years, the political ground beneath her may have shifted so dramatically that the voters very well may have moved on.

The balance of her gubernatorial term also presents rhetorical problems. If her successor does well, then the refrain will be that Palin was not even the most qualified person to lead Alaska, let alone the whole country. If the new governor stumbles badly, many will hold Palin responsible for bailing out in the first place.

The one argument option that remains viable is one that goes something like this: "Look, you said you wanted change in 2008, so you voted for change. But the change agent you elected came from the same old system, and so we didn't get much change. We need someone who has no connection to that old system, so that's why I got out in 2009. I'm the real deal." Now much would depend on the execution of such an approach and Palin would still have to prove her policy competence during the campaign. But, as I see it, that's the only truly powerful rhetorical option generated by her brash resignation. And a bold move that leaves you with only one option is usually a bad move.

Of course, I could be wrong. Pundits like Mary Matalin and this guy from FOXNews.com see this as some sort of brilliant "checkmate" move. But the latter's argument is based on Palin now being liberated from her Alaska responsibilities and building a national political presence here in the "lower 48." All of which make her into something altogether uninspiring--a typical pol who quit on her constituents. Try making a bumper sticker out of that.

Twitter and Politics - Part I - The Landscape

2009-06-06T17:05:00.035-04:00

I've been mulling this topic for a while now and with Friday's Time story about the overall impact of Twitter on our lives, I thought it would be a good time to post about the political and communication implications of this fast-growing technology. For the uninitiated, Twitter is a free microblogging web service which allows the sharing of brief messages (140 characters maximum) among friends, colleagues, and public figures. On the whole, Steven Johnson's Time piece is quite positive. Although it acknowledges Twitter's potential for becoming "an entire new empire of distraction," the article praises Twitter for its immediacy, interactivity, and user-generated innovations, such as hashtag, @ replies, and live searching. Johnson spends little ink on Twitter politics, other than noting that the service offers opportunities both for more exposure to diverse opinions and polarization.

The issue of Twitter's political impact and value is surprisingly complex. On the one hand, Twitter has received its share of scorn and skepticism. One of the earliest and most dramatic examples of Twitter's political power, the student-led, pro-democracy protest in Moldova, has already been debunked, although Johnson perpetuates the tale in his article. On the other hand, it was recently reported that China had, in the run-up to the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, blocked the use of Twitter along with other Internet networking sites. It's been argued that the Chinese action acknowledges "Twitter's new power in mainland China" and its value as a subversive news outlet.

In U.S. politics, Twitter has become yet another element of the partisan divide. Republicans and conservatives are seen as "early adaptors" to this new online craze, a stark contrast to their otherwise lagging Internet presence. The website "Top Conservatives on Twitter" or TCOT, is a sprawling registry of GOP Twitterers numbering in the thousands. However, the "real time" feature of Twitter, along with its built-in bluntness, has generated some GOP embarrassment. Most notably, in the middle of the Somali pirate standoff, Newt Gingrich posted a tweet criticizing President Obama's measured public response as a "major mistake" that made the U.S. "look weak." Not long after, of course, the crisis was decisively resolved, the President's approach was vindicated, and Gingrich (ranked #1 in popularity on TCOT) had to backtrack. During the stimulus bill debate, a Twitter-wielding John McCain garnered attention and raised eyebrows with his now-infamous Top 10 list of wasteful spending.

Those high-profile episodes capture headlines but don't answer the key questions: What does Twitter mean for politics and what does Republicans' embrace of the service mean for the balance of power in web politics? Although some scoff at the idea that the lightly-regarded Twitter offers any real advantage to conservatives, Michael Turk, in a post on TechPresident makes a spirited argument that Democrats ignore the GOP Twitter movement at their own peril. Turk argues that Democrats are making the same mistake their rivals made when underestimating the Left's embrace of the Internet after 2000. Addressing his opponents directly, Turk writes:

In the world of converging technologies, Twitter represents the single most interactive, most real-time, tool available. Twitter is mobile. Twitter is rapid. Twitter facilitates deep content (via linking) and fast action (via retweets and viral distribution)....It is likely, I would even say certain, that Twitter, or some next generation concept that builds upon Twitter's framework, will be a central component of the GOP resurgence. It most certainly won't happen overnight. However, I guarantee you will - when you find yourself out of power again - be able to trace the roots of your downfall to this earliest of efforts.

Pretty strong words from a party that mostly conceded its inferiority in websites, blogs, and social networking up until this point. As expected, Turk's post did not go unnoticed and generated two interesting responses. One blogger argued that social media technology generally favors the grassroots and so Twitter, therefore, would be most useful to those segments of the conservative community that are marginalized (I'm assuming this refers to areas such as gay rights, pro-immigration, etc.). Another response challenged the notion that social media technology alone can truly reverse a party's political fortunes; it still takes "stronger messages and messengers."

I would agree with this last point. I mean, the Democrats' web dominance did not save John Kerry in 2004. In fact, one could even argue that the Right used blogs more sparingly but with more strategic effect in that campaign, with the Dan Rather/National Guard memos debacle inoculating President Bush quite well against war veteran Kerry. Also, it's not like Democrats have been unable to capitalize on social media technology. Obama's campaign excelled at social networking, text messaging, and video sharing. Most likely, both parties, in order to achieve electoral success, will need to play catch-up to master the Obama approach before truly capitalizing on newer platforms, such as Twitter.

Guantanamo: Wedge Issue or Wuss Issue?

2009-05-24T20:39:00.010-04:00

According to an article in today's New York Times, the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility has become an effective "wedge issue" for Republicans against Democrats and President Obama. To review, in politics, a wedge issue is an issue that is given emphasis primarily because of its potential to drive a wedge between voters and one's political opposition. So, make no mistake, the diatribes we're hearing on this issue are primarily politically-motivated rather than genuine concerns about local and national security.

Because if they are the latter, then those critics have a pretty wimpy view of our country and its people. They are arguing that, despite all of our resources, the U.S. cannot safely secure the remaining 240 Gitmo detainees, many of whom have been beaten down by years of imprisonment and would undoubtedly face a thoroughly unpleasant ordeal incarcerated in a U.S. facility. That's 4.8 prisoners per state. According to a study by the Pew Center, as of 2007, the U.S. housed 7.3 million inmates in our prisons, including all sorts of ruthless criminals who have "killed Americans." We really can't handle 5 more in each state? And it's probably fewer than that because there may be a few more who have been wrongly jailed and should be released anyway (see earlier post on this topic). And, yes, I can honestly say that I would have no problem with a detainee holding facility in my community as it would probably be one of the most secure prisons in the history of the world.

I don't recall an outpouring of fear and outrage about the possibility of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh escaping captivity and repeating his horrific acts. Yet, prior to 9/11, McVeigh had launched the most lethal terrorist attack on U.S. soil. How is this different? Have we lost our nerve, along with our principles? If those opposing the closing of Guantanamo have done so, then their America is a weak nation easily confounded. Or, more likely, they indirectly suggest this in pursuit of the almighty "wedge issue" and its momentary political payoff. So which is it? Playing politics or playing scared? Wedge issue or wuss issue?

Obama at Notre Dame

2009-05-15T23:56:00.006-04:00

My preview of President Obama's controversial commencement speech at Notre Dame on Sunday can be found both here and here (scroll down to "studio guests" for second video).

Robert Gates and the Military Budget

2009-04-10T09:52:00.006-04:00

A couple of interesting reactions to the Obama administration's proposed defense cuts and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates's interest in taking on the defense procurement system. Michael Gerson's column in today's Washington Post is noteworthy because it's one of the few positive columns Gerson (President George W. Bush's former chief speechwriter) has penned about the new administration. Of course, most of the attention in the column is on Gates, a Bush holdover, and Obama is barely mentioned. The column is a good example of thoughtful conservative analysis that actually challenges Republican thinking on an issue. Unfortunately, it's not a typical example of the author's Post work. On most days, Gerson eschews serious conservative commentary for knee-jerk Obama-bashing.

Tony Auth's cartoon, inserted at the top of this post, draws on the iconic image of the Chinese dissident at Tiananmen Square in commenting on Gates's challenge to the "military-industrial complex" (that term itself an allusion to President Dwight D. Eisenhower's farewell address warning). Auth's metaphor is discouraging: Is Gates's cause truly that hopeless? Will the military industrialists really do anything to hold on to their power?

Obama at Notre Dame - Kenneth Woodward's take

2009-03-30T23:59:00.002-04:00

Interesting and useful column in today's Washington Post about the controversy surrounding President Obama's commencement speech and honorary degree bestowal at Notre Dame in May. I especially like the last paragraph's allusion to John F. Kennedy's 1960 candidacy; Woodward gives it a nice turn in connecting it to the ND controversy. Kennedy addressed the "religious question" in his speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. Obama's situation, however, will be more like former first lady Barbara Bush's commencement address at Wellesley in 1990, when students opposed Bush as too traditional and not representative of Wellesley women. Bush's speech, which was ultimately very well received, can be found here.

Obama's Address to Congress

2009-02-28T10:40:00.003-05:00

My analysis on the President's Address to Congress in which he laid out his priorities for the first part of his presidency can be found here.

President Obama's Inaugural Address

2009-01-23T21:02:00.007-05:00

My take on the Obama Inaugural Address can be found here.

Top Five Political Communication Moments of 2008

2008-12-31T14:45:00.009-05:00

Not surprisingly, the list comes from the historic 2008 election.

5. Barack Obama's Nomination Acceptance Speech. Sure, it looked lofty and transcendental with its open air stadium setting and fake Greek columns, but the speech and its delivery showed a pragmatism and toughness that the public was waiting to hear from the candidate.

4. John McCain's September 15 statement about economy. During the heart of the Wall Street meltdown, McCain stated: "Our economy, I think, still, the fundamentals of our economy are strong." If I'm not mistaken, Obama may have referred to McCain's line in a speech or two....

3. John McCain's Campaign Suspension Announcement. McCain either panicked or tried to get too cute. Either way, it made Obama look more presidential.

2. Barack Obama's Election Night Victory Speech. It had absolutely no impact on the election, but, in terms of sheer historical significance, the Grant Park address was undeniably powerful and capped a juggernaut of national emotion. And it was most made possible by....

1. Sarah Palin's interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson. Yes, the Governor's sit-down with CBS's Katie Couric got most of the attention and Palin's performance with Couric produced numerous damaging moments. However, Palin's inability to demonstrate to Gibson any genuine understanding of the Bush Doctrine was the beginning of the end of McCain's comeback. The Couric interview confirmed voters' doubts about Palin; the Gibson exchange confirmed the media's doubts about the VP nominee. Everything that came after Gibson, including the feeding frenzies about Couric and Neiman-Marcus, were amplified because the press, concerned about the consequences of an unprepared president, revoked Palin's benefit of the doubt. As a result, Obama was the only change agent left in a change election. Game over.

Goodbye 2008 and Happy New Year!

2008 Election - The Day After

2008-11-05T15:38:00.004-05:00

My prediction was perfect for a long stretch of the night, until Obama won Florida. I just didn't anticipate him winning both Florida and Ohio. I also didn't see Indiana going blue for the first time since 1964, which it did early this morning. North Carolina currently has Obama ahead by .2, so, if that holds up, I will have ended up 48/51. (47/51 if McCain's .2 lead in Missouri doesn't hold up, but I think it will). Ultimately, I underestimated Obama's electoral vote total by about 40-50 votes. My popular vote prediction was two points off from the current count of 53-46; I gave McCain an extra point and shortchanged Obama by one point.

The weirdest moment of the night--CNN's bizarre holographic interviews, complete with Star Trek terminology (Wolf Blitzer: "We're beaming you directly into the CNN Election Center."). This odd exercise culminated in Wolf breathlessly urging "Stay with us. Many more holograms to come."

The second weirdest moment of the night--All-powerful Oprah Winfrey being in the SECOND row at the Obama victory speech and having to strain to see past the people in front of her.

The Not-Knowing-When-To-Stop award: Apparently, Obama did not feel the evening was uplifting enough. During his victory speech, he had to let us know that his daughters were getting a new puppy! (Just don't name him Checkers....)

The Official 2008 Presidential Election Prediction

2008-11-03T23:10:00.003-05:00

I have no fancy red-and-blue map, but here's my prediction.

Barack Obama will win: Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Hawaii, for a total of 311 electoral votes.

John McCain will win: North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Alaska, for a total of 227 electoral votes.

Popular Vote: Obama 52%-47%

Halloween Politics

2008-10-31T14:31:00.006-04:00

Do Americans vote with their costumes? For years, observers have found a link between the sales of political masks and election results. Basically, whoever gets more people wearing his or her mask ends up winning the election. It's a strange connection, suggesting that we vote for the candidate who amuses/frightens us the most. Anyway, this year Barack Obama is apparently in the lead in mask sales. So, it doesn't look good for McCain, unless all the undecided trick-or-treaters break his way.

And just to show that Halloween politics is not all fun and games, there's been outrage about some Halloween yard displays--one in which a "Sarah Palin" figure is swinging from a noose and another involving a blood splattered "Barack Obama" mannequin with a meat cleaver buried in his neck. These displays, I think, are a bit symptomatic of the current political climate--people just can't seem to keep themselves from taking things too far. Of course, Ralph Nader would kill--or allow his likeness to be killed--for this type of publicity....

Sarah Palin and Joe Biden Debate Tonight

2008-10-02T15:22:00.005-04:00

With the highly-anticipated vice presidential debate tonight, here are two of the more interesting articles written about Sarah Palin and Joe Biden. Well, at least I tried to find a recent incisive column about Biden but couldn't find any. Considering that this is probably the biggest night of Joe Biden's life, it's pretty stunning that no ink is being spent on analyzing the OTHER debate participant tonight. Lots of columns and articles about Sarah Barracuda. I do find Judith Warner's comparison of Palin to Elle Woods pretty fascinating. I'm not sure it's an accurate analogy but it is thought-provoking.

UPDATE: I found one! Here is a story focused on Biden from a few days ago.

Political Cartoonists' Take on the Nominees

2008-09-17T22:43:00.002-04:00

With hurricanes and financial chaos everywhere, it might be nice to lighten the mood a bit with two New York Times columns about political cartoonists discussing their efforts in depicting the presidential and vice presidential nominees.

McCain's POW Experiences as Campaign Catch-all Retort

2008-08-23T08:50:00.003-04:00

Here is a well-articulated argument on HuffingtonPost criticizing John McCain's sometimes inappropriate political use of his POW experiences from the Viet Nam War. I also have been increasingly troubled by McCain's willingness to use such a horrible and profound experience in his life to score rather cheap political points. Of course, the author's status as a retired military officer provides the critique even more bite.

Bill Clinton's Map Room Confession - 10 Year Anniversary

2008-08-17T23:34:00.003-04:00

As John Edwards prepared for his "Nightline" interview late last week, in which he answered questions about his recently revealed extramarital affair, I wonder if he was aware of the looming anniversary of another philandering Democrat's apologia effort. Ten years ago this evening, President Bill Clinton spoke to America from the White House Map Room and admitted to having an inappropriate relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. The speech can be found here. In addition to the vague admission, Clinton also attacked Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr for overzealousness, the media for perpetuating the "spectacle," and unnamed political enemies for filing the lawsuit that forced him to lie about his affair in the first place. In making a "jurisdiction argument," the President asked the country to leave the "private" matter to his family to decide his fate. An argument that ultimately would seem to be persuasive, as many citizens grew weary of the scandal and became increasingly reluctant to see Clinton punished legally or politically. Interestingly, the speech itself was heavily criticized at the time for being too defiant, evasive, and lacking in contrition. However, many of the speech's arguments became the foundation of an ultimately effective public relations campaign. I should note that, three weeks later, Clinton did make another speech, considered much more contrite, at the National Prayer Breakfast.

Woman to Take Russert's Spot?

2008-07-01T16:39:00.002-04:00

In all of the coverage of who will succeed Tim Russert on "Meet the Press," most of the names thrown around have been men (Brokaw, Gregory, etc.). The White House Project, a nonpartisan organization working to promote women in leadership roles, has addressed the issue of possible women successors to Russert. The article can be found here. I agree with the survey results that PBS's Gwen Ifill would be a great choice.

Straight Talk Express Crashes

2008-06-11T20:24:00.001-04:00

GOP presumptive nominee John McCain has repeatedly criticized his Democratic counterpart for intentionally taking his "100 years" Iraq comment out of context. The endpoint for the argument is that such distortion goes against Barack Obama's persona as a "new" type of politician and marks him as just another partisan player. However, McCain, whose "Straight Talk Express" aims for the same persona, also engages in the type of political gamesmanship that smacks of hypocrisy.

Today, the Arizona senator revived "Bittergate," the controversy surrounding Obama's remarks during the Pennsylvania primary campaign. However, in doing so, McCain has badly misquoted Obama to the point of deceit. As CNN reports:

"In a town hall meeting in Philadelphia, McCain said he doesn’t agree that voters in the state 'cling to their religion and the Constitution because they are bitter. I am going to tell them that they have faith and they have trust and support the Constitution of the United States because they have optimism and hope and that is the strength of America.'

"McCain was referring to remarks Obama made before the state’s April 22 primary that decades of lost jobs and unfulfilled promises from Washington have left some Pennsylvanians "bitter" and clinging "to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.'"

McCain expands Obama's reference to guns into a condemnation of the entire U.S. Constitution, though the Democrat made no reference to the Constitution nor indicated any lack of "support" for it in his comments. This is a stunning and disappointing move on McCain's part that I frankly thought was beyond him. It's consistent with the ugly strategy of some Republican operatives to attempt to paint Obama as un-American or unpatriotic. There should be no tolerance for such tactics in American politics, but here it is. And McCain, of all people, is playing along. Maybe it's time to rechristen McCain's candidacy the "Straight Talking Points Express."

Balz on Wisconsin, Obama, and Rhetoric

2008-02-18T22:34:00.002-05:00

Being a Wisconsin native and a rhetoric professor, I find Washington Post reporter Dan Balz's take on both Wisconsin's historically idiosyncratic political tastes and Obama's passionate defense of the power of the spoken word to be particularly interesting. Of course, the fact that Obama apparently plagiarized that passionate defense makes for a nice twist.

Nicholas Kristof on Guantanamo

2008-02-14T14:18:00.004-05:00

Much has been written about the travesty of Guantanamo Bay, but Nicholas Kristof's latest take on the issue in the New York Times is one of the most effective and efficient that I've read yet. The case of Sami al-Hajj gets at the utter emptiness and cynicism of the official rationales for this horrific facility. Kristof correctly argues that opposing torture should not be considered being "squeamish" on terrorists. I would go farther. It's easy and cowardly to keep this charade going; it provides artificial comfort to anxious Americans while our leaders hide from the intelligence, cultural, and political work needed to truly cripple and eliminate violent extremists.

One quibble about the piece: Why did Kristof choose Katie Couric for his analogy? The comparison holds up just as well (actually, better, since al-Hajj is male) with Brian Williams, or Dan Rather, who probably daydreams about such foreign peril anyway. Putting Couric in the clutches of Iran seems to be injecting a needless strain of paternalism into the analysis. Happy Valentines Day, Katie.....

Clift on Clinton and Obama

2008-02-02T18:11:00.000-05:00

Check out Newsweek's Eleanor Clift's lovefest piece about the two remaining Democratic candidates.

Politicizing Judicial Elections

2007-10-29T20:51:00.000-04:00

Robert Barnes of the Washington Post has written an interesting article about the big-time politics of judicial elections. After noting that contests for the judiciary increasingly involve big money, negative ads, and special interest groups, Barnes writes:

"Judicial elections are an almost uniquely American invention, with a patchwork of more than 16 selection systems spread across the country. In the 21 states that hold direct partisan and nonpartisan elections for the high court, some already have evolved from quiet, down-ballot contests to full-blown campaigns with consultants and multimillion-dollar advertising campaigns. An Illinois Supreme Court contest in 2004 cost more than 18 of the 34 U.S. Senate contests that year, and candidates for chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court last year raised a total of $8.2 million."

Barnes's article raises important questions: Can judges be impartial and partisan at the same time? If they can, should they be both? Or is this an inevitable consequence of the increasing politicization of American culture, as seen in entertainment, religion, journalism, and economics?

Nixon's "Checkers Speech"--55th Anniversary Today

2007-09-23T08:55:00.000-04:00

On September 23, 1952, vice presidential candidate Richard M. Nixon delivered what has become known as the "Checkers Speech" and, in doing so, changed forever how politicians used television in public persuasion. Accused of using an illegal campaign fund, Senator Nixon defended himself on prime-time national television and employed a wide-range of apologia strategies that are still studied today. The public embraced his explanation and Republican presidential nominee Dwight D. Eisenhower kept Nixon on the ticket. The "Checkers" of the title refers to a cocker spaniel puppy that the Nixons received from a friend and that Nixon vowed to keep, regardless of the criticism. Of course, no one before the speech had criticized the puppy as an illegal gift, but the remark did make Nixon look like both a devoted family man (his daughter loved that puppy!) and, well, a puppy lover himself--two qualities which can only help one's public image. Interestingly, the New York Times next day coverage made no mention of the "Checkers" passage; nevertheless, it is now the most famous portion of the speech.

One passage that now receives little attention occurs late in the speech when Nixon states:

"Now let me finally, this evening, I want to read to you, just briefly, excerpts from a letter which I received, a letter which after all this is over no one can take away from us. It reads as follows:

Dear Senator Nixon,

Since I am only 19 years of age, I can't vote in this presidential election, but believe me if I could you and General Eisenhower would certainly get my vote. My husband is in the Fleet Marines in Korea. He' a corpsman on the front lines and we have a two month old son he's never seen. And I feel confident that with great Americans like you and General Eisenhower in the White House, lonely Americans like myself will be united with their loved ones now in Korea. I only pray to God that you won't be too late. Enclosed is a small check to help you in your campaign. Living on $85 a month, it is all I can afford at present, but let me know what else I can do.

Folks, it's a check for 10 dollars, and it's one that I will never cash."

The always-effective rhetorical tactic of a politician, during a televised address, reading a heartstring-tugging letter from an "average American" has been used many times since, but this was the first.

Personally, this is one of my favorite political speeches. First, it's historically significant. The speech empowered television as the supreme tool of political manipulation, and, if Nixon had been booted from the ticket in disgrace, his national political career may have ended, erasing his disillusioning presidency. Second, I enjoy the speech's audacity--Nixon's desperation leads him to try anything and everything to achieve political persuasion. It's a fun speech. Third, it totally worked, which cannot be said for many speeches of this genre. No wonder a group of prominent rhetoric scholars have ranked "Checkers" as the sixth best American speech of the 20th century, in the same impressive company as MLK's "I Have a Dream," JFK's First Inaugural, and FDR's Pearl Harbor speech.

George Will on Alberto Gonzales

2007-09-04T22:23:00.001-04:00

In his most recent column for Newsweek, conservative columnist George Will offers a succinct but devastating critique of departing Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. More evidence that Gonzales's incompetence and dishonesty were real and not the products of a partisan hatchet job, as suggested by President Bush last week.

Elizabeth Edwards on Obama, Hillary, and the Media

2007-08-07T22:38:00.000-04:00

Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, is becoming increasingly outspoken in advocating for her husband, and she's starting to raise some eyebrows with her comments. Today, CNN reported:

“We can’t make John black, we can’t make him a woman,” said Edwards, referring to Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton during an interview with Ziff Davis Media about the Internet’s role in the 2008 presidential election. “Those things get you a certain amount of fundraising dollars....Eric Schultz, a spokesman for Edwards’ campaign, told CNN Tuesday that Elizabeth Edwards was “noting what countless reporters and pundits have said for months, that Senators Clinton and Obama get a lot of media attention, and deservedly so, because of the potential ‘firsts’ of their candidacies.”

I don't think Al Sharpton, Elizabeth Dole, or Carol Mosley-Brown, prior presidential candidates whose nomination bids floundered, would agree with Elizabeth's theory as to why John Edwards is not receiving the same amount of media attention as the two Democratic front-runners. And I'm thinking that her comments would be getting a lot more scrutiny if she were, let's say, the wife of a Republican candidate.

First, I personally think Edwards gets plenty of coverage. But there's another, less provocative explanation as to why he is lagging in coverage, polling, and fundraising. He's a retread candidate--he's seen as one-half of the Dem's 2004 losing ticket yet he's running on the same themes in 2008. He's become a bit boring. Sure, the "firstness" of Obama and Hillary is noteworthy. But the news media has 24 hours to fill every day, and, if Edwards was bringing something fresh or bold or provocative to this campaign, it probably would make the news. It's not rocket science.

The Tragic Plight of Working-Class Millionaires

2007-08-05T15:03:00.000-04:00

Gary Rivlin's article in today's New York Times uncovers yet another overlooked national disgrace--the struggles of so-called "working-class millionaires" in California's Silicon Valley. Estimates put the number of these single-digit millionaires in the "tens of thousands." And, until now, many have suffered in silence. The gist of Rivlin's piece is that millionaires in the Valley face financial, professional, and psychological challenges in trying to keep up with those who have more. Or as one "workaday wealth-monger" (my term, not Rivlin's) stated, "a few million doesn’t go as far as it used to." Another "everyman elitist" (again, my term--this is kind of fun...) justified his 60-80 hour workweek by noting "You're nobody here at $10 million." Rivlin even interviews a Menlo Park psychologist who specializes in the crippling guilt and self-doubt suffered by these..."lunchpail luxury-livers" (okay, I'll stop...). Thank God, these people, and their plight, have been brought out of the shadows--their Ferrari-driving, obscenely-rich shadows. The 2008 presidential campaign finally has an issue that will get voters to the polls--how to best help our single-digit millionaires.

The entire article is worth reading even if only to test one's tolerance for the absurd. To make the read more fun, count the number of times you find yourself rolling your eyes, or muttering under your breath, "you've got to be kidding..."

Tony Snow's Comment About the Iraq Heat

2007-07-17T11:25:00.001-04:00

A few days ago, White House press secretary Tony Snow made a peculiar comment about the intense temperatures in Iraq at this time of year. In discussing how the Iraqi parliament will be on vacation during the entire month of August, thereby delaying any legislation that might get the country closer to political reconciliation, Snow remarked:

"My understanding is at this juncture they're going to take August off, but, you know, they may change their minds." He added sympathetically: "You know, it's 130 degrees in Baghdad in August."

Isn't it 130 degrees in Baghdad for our troops also? Probably hotter for those wearing gear. I'm assuming they won't get to "beat the heat" and come home for August. Is the Bush administration really prioritizing the comfort of sluggish and ineffective Iraqi politicians over the safety and lives of our men and women in uniform? Hard to believe, but a comment like Snow's certainly raises a red flag.

Giuliani's 9/11 Legacy and NYC Firefighters

2007-06-17T23:15:00.000-04:00

Interesting and somewhat surprising New York Times report about GOP presidential front runner Rudy Giuliani's less than full support from NYC firefighters. The firefighters' criticisms of Rudy now open the door for others to more carefully scrutinize and challenge Giuliani's post-9/11 conduct, which, up until now, has been virtually untouchable. What's at stake for Rudy? Only his primary presidential selling point to a national electorate mostly unfamiliar with the specifics of his tenure as NYC mayor. Will other Republican candidates be tempted to delve into this area? Something to keep an eye on in the next six months as second tier candidates try to put a dent into the legacy of "America's Mayor."

Bush and Cheney's Visitor Logs and the Minimal Need for Candor

2007-06-09T11:33:00.000-04:00

A few days ago, an AP story appeared about the President and Vice-President's efforts to have their White House visitor logs declared "presidential records" and therefore exempt from public scrutiny. In other words, it would be impossible to find out with whom President Bush and Dick Cheney meet as they conduct the nation's business. The administration's justification for yet another layer of White House secrecy is to assure that the president and vice president "receive candid advice to carry out their duties."

However, on that same day, in an unrelated story, presidential adviser Dan Bartlett resigned and, in the AP's coverage of that development, Bartlett was described as one of the very few individuals who can actually provide candor to President Bush:

"He is known as someone who has Bush’s ear, one of few people who can give the president bad news....'He can talk to the president in a candid way, in sort of a family way, that almost nobody else can,' White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten told The Associated Press."

Well, that's a bit scary--that few of Bush's advisers feel as though he will be receptive to their honest counsel. On the other hand, if Bartlett is one of the very few people who can speak candidly to the President--and he is now gone--is there any further justification for declaring the visitor logs off limits?

The Paradox of Cindy Sheehan

2007-04-12T15:48:00.000-04:00

Cindy Sheehan spoke on the campus of Saint Mary's College yesterday and, after listening to her in person, it became clear why she is such a provocative and polarizing public figure. The mother of four and staunch anti-war advocate is a confounding combination of passion and bitterness, intelligence and demagoguery, heartfelt sorrow and political savvy.

On the one hand, her insults and ridicule of President Bush and his family seemed entirely unnecessary and counterproductive. Some of her put-downs include referring to the Crawford ranch as a "pig farm," Bush as a "no brain," "utterly incompetent" "D+ student", and the Bush family as a clan "trained to oppress people." On the other hand, her eventual point that now is "no time to be polite" resonates in an era when dissent is branded as "unpatriotic" or "treasonous"--no small insults there either.

On the one hand, Sheehan comes off as a sincere, down-to-earth, grieving mom with not a calculating bone in her body. She exudes principle when she commends young peace activists' refusal to use the violent protests of earlier eras, because "they realize you can't use the tactics of the war machine to fight the war machine." On the other hand, Sheehan's handlers denied her audience the opportunity for a genuine Q&A session. Rather than open the floor to questions, her people solicited written queries which were then sifted through and filtered to Sheehan with blatant calculation. Questions like "who are the war profiteers you are talking about?" made the cut, allowing Sheehan to expand on her argument rather than openly engage her audience. This tactic of "staged" Q&A is, of course, something for which the Bush administration itself is criticized.

So Cindy Sheehan was, to me, a paradox. Her willingness to criticize almost everyone, including the peace movement's "weekend activists", diminishes both her personal and persuasive appeal. Yet you cannot help but feel compassion for the soft-spoken mother whose son, Casey, was killed after five days in Iraq. "After" as Sheehan poignantly added "I had spent my entire life trying to protect him." And maybe the contradictions about her, her comfort with discomfort, the lack of a clear persona or consistent packaging, make her, in the end, all the more genuine, if not broadly persuasive.

Great Insights by Garry Wills About the "Commander-In-Chief"

2007-02-03T13:21:00.000-05:00

Garry Wills's recent column in the New York Times makes an intriguing and useful point about citizens' excessive deference to the President in his role as "OUR commander-in-chief." Wills simply but profoundly reminds us that a president is commander-in-chief of no citizen, but is rather the official civilian leader of the armed forces. In fact, the chief executive is responsive to us, the electorate.

Wills writes: "The glorification of the president as a war leader is registered in numerous and substantial executive aggrandizements; but it is symbolized in other ways that, while small in themselves, dispose the citizenry to accept those aggrandizements.

We are reminded, for instance, of the expanded commander in chief status every time a modern president gets off the White House helicopter and returns the salute of marines. That is an innovation that was begun by Ronald Reagan. Dwight Eisenhower, a real general, knew that the salute is for the uniform, and as president he was not wearing one. An exchange of salutes was out of order."

We should not allow the powerful and sentimental allure of military trappings, especially during a time of war, to limit both our perception of what the Presidency is and our own role in expecting accountability from that institution.

Women and Politics II - Diane Sawyer's Blunder

2007-01-18T09:29:00.000-05:00

For days, ABC's "Good Morning America" heavily promoted Diane Sawyer's interview with the so-called "Sweet Sixteen"--the 16 women in the U.S. Senate, which aired yesterday and will continue this morning. The interview did offer some interesting insights--especially the perceived need of many of these powerful women to emphasize their willingness to go to war, if circumstances warranted. Despite their increasing stature, these politicians still are required to prove that they are "tough enough" for the Oval Office.

The editing of individual comments was too abrupt at times and, for whatever reason, Democrats were given much more air time than the GOP women. My main complaint about the piece, however, occurred in its opening seconds and almost derailed the entire interview. Sawyer opened the segment by asking the women what they thought of Barrack Obama's movement toward a presidential run. Maria Cantwell (D-Washington) tried to keep the focus on the potential history-making presidential candidate sitting next to her, Hillary Clinton, and Hillary herself appeared awkward. Sawyer couldn't resist trying to get some "news" out of the event. However, she already had a great story sitting right in front of her--the largest number of women ever serving at one time in the U.S. Senate.

To focus the first moments of the interview--when most viewers are paying closest attention--on a male politician was unnecessary and undermined the entire point of the piece. By going for a cheap scoop, Sawyer reinforced the notion of politics as, first and foremost, a man's game.

Thoughts on President Bush's Speech Announcing New Iraq Strategy

2007-01-11T17:18:00.000-05:00

The build-up to President Bush's speech last night created a genuine sense of drama and significance surrounding this act of prime-time political communication. Just prior to and during the White House address, one could feel an inescapable gravity, a feeling that the entire Iraq situation was approaching a crucial moment. Much of the speech's substance had already been leaked, so the changes in policy announced were not surprising and had been debated throughout the day. This post will address two more peripheral, but telling, aspects of the speech.

I was surprised by the choice of White House venue--the first floor Library. As the setting for such a major address, the room was fairly nondescript and lacked the authority and comforting familiarity of the Oval Office. Bush stood somewhat stiffly in front of some bookshelves, near what looked like a cold fireplace, and delivered the speech from a podium. I'm not sure if the President was shooting for an FDR "fireside chat"-type vibe or even a Jimmy Carter "fireside chat"-type vibe (Carter actually delivered his chats from that very room). Bush's aides explained that the library would make the President appear serious yet conversational, but it came off looking more like he was pitching the latest Time-Life book series. Worse yet, it reminded me of Bill Clinton's choice of the random, nondescript Map Room to publicly admit his affair with Monica Lewinsky. I'm pretty sure that's the last thing Bush wanted people thinking about last night.

The line from the speech that was most interesting to me, but not overly-dissected in the post-speech analysis that I watched was the President's admission of responsibility: "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me." Although today's headlines have trumpeted this statement as Bush "taking blame" and admitting that he made mistakes, the indirectness and passivity of the specific language are noteworthy. Statements of apologia, or self-defense, especially in a political context, are carefully crafted in terms of language. So the way that sentence is constructed is very intentional and strategic. No mistakes had been identified at that point in the speech so the "admission," as heard by the public, was somewhat empty. Second, the phrase "the responsibility rests with me" is much less assertive and direct than a statement like "I take responsibility for...." Why does it matter? Because, in that brief but important moment, Bush's cultivated and appealing image as a plain-talking, straight shooter was subordinated to his unappealing disdain for admitting error. As a result, I predict that the passage will not have the public impact that the President hoped it would.

Women and Politics

2007-01-07T23:25:00.000-05:00

With the ascension of Nancy Pelosi to Speaker of the House and third in line to the presidency, the election of many other women in the mid-term elections, and the highly -visible presence of Condoleeza Rice and Hillary Clinton on the national political stage, there has been much discussion of the impact of the increasing prominence of women political leaders at all levels of government. One such impact appears to be stronger interest in politics in college-age women. I taught a course in Political Communication last semester at Saint Mary's College, a Catholic women's college, and the level of the students' interest and engagement about politics was impressive. Our class weblog demonstrates well this interest, along with some sharp critical insights about last fall's campaign and elections.

"Red-Handed" Ads: MoveOn.org Overreaches Again

2006-09-03T21:39:00.000-04:00

MoveOn.org, the liberal political action committee, has generated a lot of creative energy and money to help liberal causes and candidates. However, the group often undermines its own credibility through its exaggerated and inconsistent attacks. FactCheck.org, recently called MoveOn on another inconsistency. FactCheck.org is run by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, which, as its website describes "accepts NO funding from business corporations, labor unions, political parties, lobbying organizations or individuals."

MoveOn has been running a series of political advertisements known as the "Caught Red-Handed" ads across the country. These spots generally attack Republican members of Congress for inappropriate ties to big business. The ads are well-produced and memorable, mainly because of the blood red hand digitally painted onto a black and white image of the targeted candidate. In fact, in our own second congressional district in Indiana, GOP incumbent Chris Chocola has been the target of a "Red-Handed" ad.

More recently, according to FactCheck, MoveOn has criticized three GOP congressmen (Charlie Bass of New Hampshire and John Sweeney and Randy Kuhl of New York) for being caught red-handed "supporting money spent on Halliburton contracts and wasteful Iraq projects." However, based on FactCheck's review of the applicable congressional appropriation votes, Democrats also widely supported many of the same spending bills. In fact, according to the nonpartisan group, "even three lawmakers whom MoveOn is specifically endorsing often voted for the same bills being criticized" in the "Caught Red-Handed" spots. Although those three politicians, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Bill Nelson of Florida, and Sherrod Brown of Ohio voted for the defense spending bills, they were not targeted by MoveOn's "Caught Red-Handed" campaign. This double standard is similar to that applied by Republicans in the 2004 presidential campaign. At that time, Democratic nominee John Kerry was savaged for voting to cut military spending during his Senate career, despite the fact that many Republicans also voted for the very same cuts.

The tactic was misleading then, and remains so now. I believe Kerry and the Democrats also were hurt by other MoveOn attack ads during the 2004 campaign--ads that again were well-produced and even clever, but came off as smug or tasteless and turned off crucial moderate voters. MoveOn.org probably is effective at rousing the energy (and wallets) of the liberal base and maybe that's its primary goal. But for liberal politicians who need to attract moderates to get elected, the organization may provide more headaches than headway.

Karl Rove's "Blame the Media First" Strategy

2006-07-30T07:43:00.000-04:00

In a commencement speech yesterday at the George Washington University Graduate School of Political Management, presidential adviser Karl Rove essentially attacked the integrity of the entire mainstream news media. Rove argued that journalists criticize politicians because "they want to draw attention away from the corrosive role their coverage has played focusing attention on process and not substance." This is the latest example of a concerted election year strategy by Rove to challenge the integrity and legitimacy of news journalism. Earlier this year, the strategy appeared in force with the strident and overheated condemnations of The New York Times following the Times's revelations about NSA eavesdropping and surveillance.

So what's up with this "Blame the Media First" Strategy? I thought the Democrats were the opposition, not the media. However, on a deeper strategic level, it makes sense. In some ways, the Democrats themselves have become a bit irrelevant in this current election cycle. The election has become about how badly Americans perceive the state of things these days. And where do we get our notions about how bad things are? The news media. Therefore, if Karl Rove and his surrogates can convince us that journalists are "corrosive," dishonest, and unconcerned about national security, perhaps we'll start doubting--or at least not take as seriously-- the bad news that we've been hearing everyday for quite some time. At that point, the campaign then comes down to political ads and "gotcha" politics--the arenas in which a political mastermind like Rove thrives. It's actually sort of brilliant--desperate, but brilliant.

On the other hand, the national news media HATES having its legitimacy challenged, because journalists know if they lose that (or at least the perception of legitimacy), they lose everything. So it could be a season of rough media coverage for those candidates who follow Rove's lead.

Manhattan--A Communication Perspective

2006-07-09T11:38:00.000-04:00

I spent the month of June touring New York City. Of course, there’s great theatre, restaurants, and museums to be enjoyed on their own terms. But I also wanted to experience Manhattan as a communication scholar and, from that somewhat atypical perspective, the Big Apple still has a lot to offer.

In Lower Manhattan’s financial district, the architecture itself communicates specific arguments about NYC’s early self-concept. The classic Greek-style structures, such as the former U.S. Customs Building, expressed the grandeur and greatness that the planners hoped lay ahead for the United States—suggesting a civilization as magnificent and durable as ancient Rome. The architecture also communicated the arrogance and affluence of the robber barons—the Morgans and Rockefellers who developed Manhattan. Their buildings bore no names, because they genuinely believed that everyone who mattered should already know who and what were inside their buildings. J.P. Morgan excelled in that regard. Not only was his bank unnamed, but it stood only a few stories tall to show that HE did not need to develop the air space above his business—he was rich enough. Later, after a massive bomb explosion on Wall Street inflicted only superficial cracks on Morgan’s bank building, the financier left the pock marks to show the world how indestructible he and his building were. The marks remain to this day.

Other Manhattan structures did not make arguments but rather provoked arguments, particularly about the conflicting values of historical preservation and economic development. At one point in its history, Carnegie Hall, the legendary performing space, was almost demolished and replaced with a red skyscraper. Grand Central Terminal, another architecturally-rich and historically significant edifice, also almost fell prey to the wrecking ball to be replaced by another anonymous skyscraper. The very fact that these landmarks still stand is a testament to the rhetorical skill of many preservation activists, including Jackie Kennedy Onassis, who played a key role in saving Grand Central. Many important arguments and ideas used to bring about landmark preservation around the country emerged from NYC’s struggles to preserve its own history.

The architecture of the Lower East Side provoked arguments of a different nature. A tour of the Lower East Side Tenement Museum is like stepping back in time. We walked through the old tenement apartments of two immigrant families, one from the 1870s and one from the 1930s. The cramped, sweltering abodes made for very difficult living for NYC immigrant families. However, our guide also informed us that for many families the tenements actually were a good option, because it kept them out of the shantytowns that became the fate of so many others. However, most fascinating were all of the arguments made against immigration during the previous two centuries. Those arguments sound very familiar if you’ve followed our country’s current immigration debate. Those opposed to Irish, German, and Jewish newcomers also expressed concerns about disease, jobs, crime, immigrants’ refusal to assimilate, and the changing of our national character. The objections to the Germans seem particularly relevant to the current concerns about Mexican immigrants—many believed the Germans were so different from “us” and so immersed in their own culture that they would never assimilate and speak English.

Manhattan also houses some U.S. presidential rhetorical history. Most significantly, George Washington delivered the First Inaugural Address at Federal Hall on Wall Street in 1789. Unfortunately, the building's interior currently is closed for renovation, but you can still see the spot where Washington took the oath of office. I also visited Theodore Roosevelt’s Birthplace on 20th Street. It’s actually a 1920’s reconstruction of the original house. The house provides a wealth of information about TR, but the front exterior is being restored and is completely obscured by scaffolding. While I knew that the Teddy Bear was named after Teddy Roosevelt, I didn’t know that the name derived from an incident when Roosevelt refused to kill a bear captured in a trap. And in a pre-radio/television example of the news media actively shaping a politician's image, the media quickly embraced the story, leading one political cartoonist to regularly use a small bear as a symbol for Roosevelt in his drawings. Not long after, small stuffed bears were being marketed and sold as “teddy” bears.

The Great Hall at Cooper Union in NYC’s East Village was the site of Abraham Lincoln’s important “Right Makes Might” speech, the speech in which Lincoln laid out his anti-slavery position. The address catapulted him into the Presidency and put the nation on a track toward Civil War. Unfortunately, this site is also one of the trickiest to visit, taking four visits to finally get in. On one attempt, the building was closed. On the second attempt, the security guard expressed confusion and annoyance that we would want to see the historic hall and told us that it was closed in the mornings. We returned on a later afternoon and the security guard refused to let us go down into the auditorium, because “it’s pretty dark down there.” Luckily, on the fourth attempt, Bard College was holding its commencement ceremony in the Great Hall, so we were able to sneak in. The exhibit outside the auditorium describes the Great Hall as a bastion of free speech at which many significant figures, including Mark Twain, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Frederick Douglass also spoke, making Cooper Union a genuine landmark of rhetorical history.

So it’s very interesting and fun to experience a city from a communication perspective. However, not all of the experiences were stimulating or enlightening. For example, if you visit CNN’s New York bureau, the official tour includes a glass exhibit case containing a pair of Larry King’s suspenders. Whatever….

Fox News and World Domination

2006-04-28T10:19:00.000-04:00

Fox News Channel has been popping up a lot lately. First, we found out that Vice President Cheney requests that the 24-hour cable news network be waiting for him when he arrives at a hotel room. In addition to the TV, the lights must be turned on also--thank goodness our nation currently has no need for energy conservation. More recently, President Bush tapped FNC's own conservative broadcaster Tony Snow to replace perennially embattled Scott McClellan as White House Press Secretary. Two inevitable consequences of this move: (1) a blizzard of all-too-easy "Snow job" puns whenever Tony stonewalls or spins a little too creatively, and (2) a Presidential Medal of Freedom for McClellan. And if that's not enough evidence of Fox dominance, from where does "24"'s weasly President Charles Logan get his information: Fox News, of course. Although after Logan's recent aiding of terrorists, Brit Hume may want to rethink that particular product placement.

Then yesterday we find out that a mini-rebellion broke out on Air Force One. The issue: On which channel should the White House and Air Force One televisions be set? Apparently, they are always set to Fox News, and reporters' requests to have the channel changed to CNN have been denied by White House staff. The Washington Post's Jim VandeHei grilled Scott McClellan (you think they would cut the poor guy a break!) aboard the President's plane yesterday. An "amused" McClellan immediately checked into the situation and, after learning that there were no available parachutes on the aircraft, returned to the press corps and informed them that the channels would be dialed to CNN. At least until Cheney finds out.

So good luck with that new job, Tony. But don't worry, Fox News will still be there when you're done.

Nikita Khrushchev's "Secret Speech" - 50 year anniversary

2006-02-24T18:02:00.000-05:00

When the topic of famous speakers and speeches comes up, a familiar littany of names surface: Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Ronald Reagan. Our U.S.-centric (not to mention male-centric) knowledge of political communication suggests that our country invented and exclusively practices successful and important rhetoric. A fascinating story on National Public Radio this morning reminds us how far that is from the truth:

"Saturday marks the 50th anniversary of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev's "secret speech" to the Communist Party's Congress. It was the first major denunciation of Joseph Stalin and proved a watershed in Soviet history."

The NPR report discusses in more detail the context and unexpected consequences of Khrushchev's speech. The report also concentrates on a surprising wave of "growing appreciation" of the brutal Stalin among many of today's Russians. Listen to this interesting piece to learn more about an example of compelling non-American political communication and a disturbing shift in Russian collective memory.

Bush's State of the Union Speech and Cindy Sheehan Arrest

2006-02-01T10:02:00.000-05:00

President Bush's State of the Union speech last night was particularly noteworthy for its reaching out to Democrats a bit more than usual (even sharing credit with them) and for his ideas about alternative energy.

His opening passage about the passing of Coretta Scott King was also appropriate and well-articulated: "Today our nation lost a beloved, graceful, courageous woman who called America to its founding ideals and carried on a noble dream. Tonight we are comforted by the hope of a glad reunion with the husband who was taken from her so long ago, and we are grateful for the good life of Coretta Scott King."

However, the President's fine sentiment toward King was preceded by the arrest of Cindy Sheehan for wearing, and refusing to cover, a T-shirt with an anti-war message. Sheehan, invited to attend the speech by a California congresswoman, was removed from the hall in handcuffs. It's interesting that, as the President honored the wife of a civil rights leader who achieved great advances through the use of civil disobedience, a political protestor was arrested for exercising free speech. Despite the President's welcome words, the intolerance of dissent remains a disturbing issue in our political dialogue.

Oprah and Frey: Celebrity Book Clubs Gone Bizarre

2006-01-29T11:22:00.000-05:00

Oprah Winfrey's turnaround on the James Frey "memoir" has been sudden and complete. After vigorously defending Frey following the revelation of factual inaccuracies (and outright lies), Oprah has now retracted that support and apologized to her viewers. Then when Frey appeared on her talk show this week, she mercilessly interrogated him in a way that would make Jack Bauer proud. Why the flip-flop from this usually rock-solid icon?

Well, as the credibility of Oprah's Book Club was eroding, the most recent issue of The Week passes this information along from The New York Times: "'Rogue State,' an obscure book recommended by Osama bin Laden last week as a "useful lesson" on U.S. foreign policy, has zoomed from No. 209,000 on the Amazon.com sales list to No. 30." Clearly, the public is desperate for celebrity literature endorsements.

Maybe Oprah realized that if the murderous and hated Osama could so quickly fill the void she temporarily created, imagine what Tony Danza could do. Or Tyra Banks.

Reagan's Challenger Speech and the Rhetoric of Tragedy

2006-01-28T21:08:00.000-05:00

Today marks the 20th anniversary of the Space Shuttle Challenger accident and President Ronald Reagan's speech about the tragedy. The explosion occurred in the morning, killing astronauts Michael Smith, Dick Scobee, Judith Resnik, Ronald McNair, Ellison Onizuka, Gregory Jarvis, and school teacher Christa McAuliffe. Reagan's speech was delivered that night, after the full horror and shock of the event had set in. That national address is now hailed, deservedly so, as a masterpiece of public communication. Reagan discussed the accident in a way that was deeply personal, yet not exploitive: "Nancy and I are pained to the core by the tragedy of the shuttle Challenger....For the families of the seven, we cannot bear, as you do, the full impact of this tragedy."

Because of McAuliffe's presence on the mission, school children across the U.S. witnessed the accident on live television. Reagan addressed those children directly and consoled them with straightforward and gentle language: "I know it's hard to understand, but sometimes painful things like this happen. It's all part of the process of exploration and discovery." And the rest of us realized that sometimes adults and children need to hear the same words.

The second half of the speech brings with it an edge. That much of the world watched the explosion live presented a challenge to our national self-image and Reagan sensed that. He rebooted our national pride with a veiled but deft swipe at the Soviet Union: "We don't hide our space program. We don't keep secrets and cover things up. We do it all up front and in public. That's the way freedom is, and we wouldn't change it for a minute." He also acknowledged NASA's "anguish" and, in so doing, acknowledged the agency's responsibility. Furthermore, the President sternly rebuked those who were asserting that the space shuttle program needed to be mothballed: "There will be more shuttle flights and more shuttle crews and, yes, more volunteers, more civilians, more teachers in space."

Reagan's poignant but hopeful words struck a chord that night and, 20 years later, communication experts still consider it one of the best American speeches of the 20th century. In the two decades since, other presidents have risen to the occasion in the face of national catastrophe. Bill Clinton's reaction to the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing was widely praised for its humanity and empathy: "You have lost too much, but you have not lost everything. And you certainly have not lost America, for we will stand with you for as many tomorrows as it takes." George W. Bush's speech to Congress on September 20, 2001 will undoubtedly be extolled and studied forever: "My fellow citizens, for the last nine days, the entire world has seen for itself the state of our Union -- and it is strong."

Why do some of our worst national moments give rise to some of our leaders' best moments of public communication? Many scholars consider the Reagan and Clinton speeches above to be the best of their presidencies. The two men served in the Oval Office for a total of 16 years and delivered thousands of speeches. Yet, those two, both responding to tragedy, rise above the thousands. Why?

Maybe failure at such a critical moment is not an option. Too much is at stake. Too many eyes are looking to the leader for counsel and comfort. So the speechwriters don't quit until they get it right. Or maybe it's more mysterious than that, maybe the words come from forces we don't understand. But neither of those theories explain those speeches that don't succeed, despite emerging from death and despair, such as George W. Bush's ineffective response to Hurricane Katrina and Clinton's lackluster memorial for slain U.S. Capitol guards.

Maybe, just maybe, these speeches work, because, although uttered by politicians, they are not primarily political. The sudden tragedy renders strategy and spin unpalatable, even in the most partisan souls. But this theory raises another question. Why can't our leaders respond with the same compassion, seriousness, and honesty to the tragedies that are even more devastating but not sudden and dramatic, such as poverty, disease, and war? Maybe our leaders should always, to paraphrase Tim McGraw, "lead like we were dying."

John Murtha's Iraq Speech in Full

2005-11-19T17:50:00.000-05:00

Congressman John Murtha's unexpected call for beginning a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq caught everyone, Democrats and Republicans alike, very much offguard. Murtha is a widely respected, strongly pro-military lawmaker who voted for the Iraq war. He is deeply connected with the US military, its commanders, and military families. Murtha is not Michael Moore and even those who make that accusation know that he isn't. Conserva†ive commentator David Brooks called the Moore comparison "infuriating." True, Murtha doesn't address the consequences of a complete pullout for the people of Iraq and for the war on terrorism, and those are legitimate concerns about the course he proposes. Nevertheless, this is a very dramatic and important rhetorical act and demonstrates the power of political communication when it is used sparingly and at a critical moment in a long-running controversy.

The US media has played snippets of Murtha's statement. Under the circumstances, I believe the complete speech warrants publication. Here are Murtha's remarks in full:

"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region.

"General Casey said in a September 2005 hearing, 'the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency.' General Abizaid said on the same date, "Reducing the size and visibility of the coalition forces in Iraq is part of our counterinsurgency strategy."

"For two and a half years, I have been concerned about the U.S. policy and the plan in Iraq. I have addressed my concerns with the Administration and the Pentagon and have spoken out in public about my concerns. The main reason for going to war has been discredited. A few days before the start of the war I was in Kuwait - the military drew a red line around Baghdad and said when U.S. forces cross that line they will be attacked by the Iraqis with Weapons of Mass Destruction - but the US forces said they were prepared. They had well trained forces with the appropriate protective gear.

"We spend more money on Intelligence that all the countries in the world together, and more on Intelligence than most countries GDP. But the intelligence concerning Iraq was wrong. It is not a world intelligence failure. It is a U.S. intelligence failure and the way that intelligence was misused.

"I have been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals almost every week since the beginning of the War. And what demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace; the devastation caused by IEDs; being deployed to Iraq when their homes have been ravaged by hurricanes; being on their second or third deployment and leaving their families behind without a network of support.

"The threat posed by terrorism is real, but we have other threats that cannot be ignored. We must be prepared to face all threats. The future of our military is at risk. Our military and their families are stretched thin. Many say that the Army is broken. Some of our troops are on their third deployment. Recruitment is down, even as our military has lowered its standards. Defense budgets are being cut. Personnel costs are skyrocketing, particularly in health care. Choices will have to be made. We cannot allow promises we have made to our military families in terms of service benefits, in terms of their health care, to be negotiated away. Procurement programs that ensure our military dominance cannot be negotiated away. We must be prepared. The war in Iraq has caused huge shortfalls at our bases in the U.S.

"Much of our ground transportation is worn out and in need of either serous overhaul or replacement. George Washington said, "To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace." We must rebuild out Army. Our deficit is growing out of control. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office recently admitted to being "terrified" about the budget deficit in the coming decades. This is the first prolonged war we have fought with three years of tax cuts, without full mobilization of American industry and without a draft. The burden of this war has not been shared equally; the military and their families are shouldering this burden.

"Our military has been fighting a war in Iraq for over two and a half years. Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty. Our military captured Saddam Hussein, and captured or killed his closest associates. But the war continues to intensify. Deaths and injuries are growing, with over 2,079 confirmed American deaths. Over 15,500 have been seriously injured and it is estimated that over 50,000 will suffer from battle fatigue. There have been reports of at least 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths.

"I just recently visited Anbar Province Iraq in order to assess the condition on the ground. Last May 2005, as part of the Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill, the House included to Moran Amendment, which was accepted in Conference, and which required the Secretary of Defense to submit quarterly reports to Congress in order to more accurately measure stability and security in Iraq. We have not received two reports. I am disturbed by the findings in key indicator areas. Oil production and energy production are below pre-war levels. Our reconstruction efforts have been crippled by security situation. Only $9 billion of the $18 billion appropriated for reconstruction has been spent. Unemployment remains at about 60 percent. Clean water is scarce. Only $500 million of the $2.2 billion appropriated for water projects have been spent. And most importantly, insurgent incidents have increased from about 150 per week to over 700 in the last year. Instead of attacks going down over time and with the addition of more troops, attacks have grown dramatically. Since the revelations at Abu Ghraib, American causalities have doubled. An annual State Department report in 2004 indicated a sharp increase in global terrorism.

"I said over a year ago, and now the military and the Administration agrees, Iraq can not be won 'militarily.' I said two years ago, the key to progress in Iraq is to Iraqitize, Internationalize and Energize. I believe the same today. But I have concluded that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress.

"Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are untied against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, Saddamists and foreign jihadists. I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraq security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted shows that over 80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, about 45% of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free. Free from United Stated occupation. I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good of a "free" Iraq.

"My plan calls:

* To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
* To create a quick reaction force in the region.
* To create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines.
* To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.

"This war needs to be personalized. As I said before, I have visited with the severely wounded of this war. They are suffering.

"Because we in Congress are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, it is our responsibility, our obligation, to speak out for them. That's why I am speaking out.

"Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home."

"There You Go Again"--25 years later

2005-10-28T19:05:00.000-05:00

With all of the media chatter about high-level Bush administration indictments, the Harriet Miers withdrawal, and Hurricane Omega (or whatever Greek letter we're up to), an important anniversary in political communication history has slipped by unnoticed.

On the night of October 28, 1980, President Jimmy Carter and Republican nominee Ronald Reagan met for their one and only debate of the presidential campaign. We take presidential debates for granted these days, but the Carter-Reagan debate was the first televised debate in American history between an elected president and his challenger. Reagan won that debate and parlayed that momentum into an election night landslide. Many critical economic and national security issues were discussed that evening. However, what historians remember most from that debate, and what, I believe, has had a profound impact on political debates ever since was a simple but devastatingly effective four word phrase.

"There you go again."

At one point during the debate, after President Carter pressed his criticism of the California governor as an aggressive war-monger, Reagan turned to Carter, shook his head, and, with a slight sigh, replied, "There you go again." The line was probably planned. And it's probably no coincidence that the first great "gotcha" line in a presidential debate came from the lips of a former Hollywood actor. It's hard to say exactly why that simple comeback resonated so much with journalists and the public. At the time, it was certainly a bold attitude to take against the man sitting in the Oval Office; some might even call it disrespectful. But it did underscore both Carter's desperation at that point in the campaign and Reagan's confidence and comfort in his own skin--the latter two traits providing reassurance to a dispirited electorate. Although the now-classic line certainly helped Reagan, it hasn't done much for the rest of us since then.

Since that night 25 years ago, political debates have become a search for the rhetorical holy grail--the killer one-liner. This quest has provided us with debate moments both lethally brilliant (Lloyd Bentsen's perfectly delivered "Senator, you are no Jack Kennedy" line, following Dan Quayle's assertion that he possessed the same qualifications as candidate John F. Kennedy) and painfully forced (Michael Dukakis's 1988 accusation that George H.W. Bush was "the Joe Isuzu of American Politics," a lemon of a line so obviously planned that the Vice President responded "Oh, is this where we pull out our one-liners? That answer was about as clear as Boston Harbor." Point (and election) to Bush. Some lines have been unintentionally funny, such as James Stockdale channelling Rodney Dangerfield and musing "Who am I? What am I doing here?" at the start of his 1992 debate with Al Gore and Dan Quayle. And every once in a while, but too rarely, a candidate has fired off a zinger with malice for no one, except himself, i.e., Ross Perot responding to a question by declaring "I'm all ears." Perot had large ears.

For better or for worse--oh, who am I kidding, let's just say, for worse, that's the legacy of Ronald Reagan's "There you go again" line uttered 25 years ago tonight. One wonders how much time the candidates' communication consultants spent trying to come up with those clever comebacks. And whether that time could have been better spent articulating coherent and thoughtful policy statements about the many critical issues that our nation faces. So, as we approach the 2006 election cycle, pay no attention to the comedy writer behind the curtain. Say no to punchline politics. You deserve better. And when a candidate spouts off that "spontaneous" quip, just look at the television, shake your head, and, with a slight sigh, say "There you go again".....

Bill Bennett's Racial Comments - No Apology Needed?

2005-10-04T15:32:00.000-05:00

It's been a bad week for apologies.

Last week, an innocent man was freed after 19 years of prison. It was discovered that a corrupt police officer bribed and intimidated a witness into falsely testifying that Barry Gibbs dumped a prostitute's body under a Brooklyn bridge. Gibbs's reaction sobers any feeling of joy at this delayed justice: "I was a legitimate guy, and now I have nothing." One hopes and expects that some judge, or perhaps the police commissioner, offered Gibbs a personal and heartfelt apology for such an eggregious mistake.

But I wouldn't bet on it.

Another story last week reported that the FBI, when conducting wiretaps for terrorism investigations, occasionally uses the wrong phone number and intercepts conversations of everyday people who have nothing to do with terrorism. One hopes and expects that some FBI public relations specialist would say "I'm sorry" for such a fundamental invasion of privacy. However, the agency could not reveal whether the spied-upon innocents are ever notified of the unwarranted spying.

So I'm guessing they're probably not getting an apology either.

Then came the corker. Last Wednesday, former Education Secretary William Bennett uttered the following remark on his syndicated radio talk show: "If you wanted to reduce crime, you could--if that were your sole purpose--you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down." A horrible and racist idea, if ever there was one. A hypothetical argument grounded in genocide and genetics--African American infants arrive as criminals from the womb. And this from a former Education Secretary. One hopes and expects that...

Not a chance. When asked if he owed people an apology, Bennett responded: "I don't think I do." He trotted out some of the good old defenses--taken out of context, comment misrepresented, only a hypothetical, etc., etc. Specifically, Bennett defended his words by assuring us that he was not advocating a black genocide, because such a position would be "morally reprehensible." But, of course, the position isn't the only thing that's wrong with the hypothetical, the ideas supporting it are false as well. The notion that eliminating African Americans would reduce crime has no basis in fact and is anchored in racist beliefs about blacks and crime. Of course. Nevertheless, no apology needed. In fact, Bennett added, "I think people who misrepresented my view owe me an apology."

So, what's up with that? Why no apology, Bill? It's what one does when one messes up. We were taught this at a very young age. And it's not a bad thing. Apologies, although brought on by our faults, demonstrate some of our most admirable traits: responsibility, empathy, compassion, morality, even politeness. The apology has had a proud tradition.

But no longer. Some communication scholars use the term "mortification" to describe the process of taking responsibility, asking for forgiveness, and apologizing. In the dictionary, mortification means humiliation and loss of self-respect. This meaning seems to have spilled over to the meaning of apologies in our political world. In the quest to regain and maintain power, politicians believe that apologies show weakness and weakness can never be shown. Saying "I'm sorry" recognizes that you were wrong and your opponents were right. And in a polarized Washington D.C., that is simply unacceptable, even for a day, even for an hour. Apologies are off-message, hard to spin and, therefore, no longer a viable communication option. That's why Bill Bennett won't apologize when he knows he should. That's just politics in 2005. The problem, however, is this: If our current political climate, a climate of partisan bitterness and cynical power games, does away with apologies, it also does away with forgiveness. And where can we go from there?

Why Bush's Speech Was No "Bullhorn Moment"

2005-09-17T11:38:00.000-05:00

President Bush's Thursday night speech was a fascinating example of the drama, calculation, and challenge of big-time, high wire political rhetoric. Although for millions of television viewers, including myself, it was a bit uncomfortable to transition from a reality game show about "survivors" voluntarily battling the elements in Guatemala to a situation where nature created real devastation, real survivors, and real fatalities. The juxtaposition was disorienting, and, once again, demonstrated the sometimes absurd co-existence of pop culture and politics.

By now, the speech has been thoroughly analyzed and critiqued. The overall media assessment went something like "Well, it was a good speech, but it was no 'bullhorn moment' for the President," a reference to Bush's well-received, post-9/11 rallying cry at Ground Zero. Also, commentators have pounced on the looming unanswered questions regarding the massive federal reconstruction plan Bush outlined for the Gulf Coast. These questions include who will execute it, where will all the money come from, and how will fiscal conservatives be persuaded to support the new spending. Finally, the political impact of Bush's comments about poverty and race and his acceptance of full responsibility for the deeply flawed federal response have been discussed and debated as well.

Much of the address itself was typically direct, straightforward, pragmatic Bush. He used numbers (500,000 evacuees received emergency help, 50 tons of medical supplies shipped, 60 million dollars appropriated) to show tangible governmental action. His program proposals, a refocusing of prior policy ideas such as enterprise zones and homesteading, were easily understood.

However, something that hasn't been talked about as much was the President's simultaneous use of a grander rhetorical style than we are accustomed to hearing from him. First, there was the theatrical setting. The nighttime scene was well-executed: President Bush walking alone through the French Quarter's Jackson Square, the podium waiting before serenely lit, historic structures. In the speech, Bush offered appropriate historical analogies (the colonists' struggles to survive winter, the Chicago fire, the San Francisco earthquake, the dust bowl), and vivid description (speaking to those who "sit on the steps of a porch where a home once stood or sleep in a cot in a crowded shelter," and visualizing a day when "the street cars will once again rumble down St. Charles"). The end of the speech employed a poignant and elegant metaphor: "In this place, there is a custom for the funerals of jazz musicians. The funeral procession parades slowly through the streets, followed by a band playing a mournful dirge as it moves to the cemetary. Once the casket has been laid in place, the band breaks into a joyful 'second line'--symbolizing the triumph of the spirit over death. Tonight the Gulf Coast is still coming through the dirge, yet we will live to see the second line." Undeniably eloquent and powerful and appropriate.

And it didn't work.

The pundits, the public, and perhaps, most importantly, gulf coast residents appear highly skeptical about the speech. I believe part of that skepticism was created by the President himself. For five years, he carefully crafted a reputation as a "plain talker," a straight shooter who says what he means and means what he says. The crafting of that image implicitly denigrated the value of grand eloquence as elitist and out of touch. However, every president will confront moments when the people expect--and need--an ability to transcend everyday language and image. Hurricane Katrina's aftermath emerged as one of those moments.

The President's first several attempts at addressing the Katrina devastation stayed true to his communication image--direct, ordinary, and stubbornly folksy. But something about this situation required more, and the White House realized that. However, by repeatedly valorizing directness and smirking at verbosity, Bush has limited his own communication options. So when the White House turns a disaster site into an artificially lit stage, the people now see a stage. And when he waxes poetic, the public doesn't buy it, because, for five years, President Bush didn't buy it. So why wasn't the New Orleans speech a "bullhorn moment"? Because the bullhorn moment was just that--a moment. Two sentences spoken through a bullhorn that struck a chord, because of their directness and clarity of purpose. But more was needed on Thursday night. And when the President ended the night with his complex and lengthy metaphor, a metaphor both delicate and dark, many Americans saw not their steadfast 9/11 leader, but a group of invisible speechwriters, trying too hard.

The World Lurches Again

2005-09-04T10:45:00.000-05:00

It's mind-boggling how quickly our lives change these days. During the past five years, we've experienced events that bring with them seismic societal shifts in what seems like a week's time. The 2000 presidential election crisis. September 11, 2001. The Iraq war. And now, the carnage of Hurricane Katrina.

I was gathering some recycling materials today and found a South Bend Tribune newspaper from August 28. That was seven days ago. I was surprised to discover only a single story about Katrina, on page three. That seems inconceivable now--that the storm was only a single bead in the kaleidoscope of our existence a mere seven days ago. Amazingly, there were more pressing matters: a mother's protest during the president's monthlong vacation, the laborious and contentious Iraqi constitutional debate, and the romantic travails of a fictional 40-year old virgin. By Friday, however, 95 percent of the front page of the New York Times was devoted to the hurricane, complete with a haunting photograph of a dead victim floating in the floodwaters. Above that photo the unfathomable headline "Despair and Lawlessness Grip New Orleans as Thousands Remain Stranded in Squalor." That the images we witness through our televisions easily confirm the outrageous claim of that headline only adds to our sense of overwhelming and disbelief.

So the world shifts yet again. We haven't resolved any of the previous crises but already we're left to ponder where this latest upheaval will take us. By now, however, one can predict three consequences. First, sincere expressions of generosity and acts of compassion will flow abundantly from all corners, and we'll try hard not to congratulate ourselves too much for doing what should be expected. Second, new "celebrities" will emerge. People we didn't know anything about, like New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and FEMA Director Michael Brown will become media fixtures, just as Katherine Harris, Mohammed Atta, and Jessica Lynch bubbled to the surface during past lurchings. And, finally, somehow, we will manage to become more divided. You can already feel it in the air. Public officials' decreasingly subtle positioning on issues of blame and responsibility. The undeniable emergence of race. The sensing of political opportunity within the ruins of tragedy. Paradoxically, compassion, celebrity and division have become the only certainty in chaotic times. That paradox raises a question and an opportunity: Is it possible to lurch toward compassion and away from the other two?

Perhaps hope lies in the depths of our own dismay. One of the recurring sentiments of the past week has been "I cannot believe this is happening in the United States of America." And it is true. The images and language describing the gulf coast's destruction and its peoples' plight are, literally, foreign to us. Words such as "refugee" and "squalor" and "anarchy" are the language of a different world, a "third world" far away. Maybe, now, in Katrina's painful wake, we will finally get it. We will know not just what a refugee is, but remember how one feels, how one lives and dies. We will finally understand, not how lucky our national lives have been, but how unlucky much of the rest of the world always is. And then maybe, after we take care of Biloxi and New Orleans, our eyes will turn to Ethiopia and Bangladesh.

But it's an uphill journey. Our nation embraces a vision of "exceptionalism" that requires an aloof distance from the weaker and less mighty. Notice, already, the refugees have been rechristened "evacuees." Already, the distance is returning.

The Complexity of Miracles

2005-08-09T14:25:00.000-05:00

We've been hearing a lot about miracles lately. The Oakland A's suddenly find themselves in a pennant race after trailing far behind in their division. So now they're the "Miracle A's." Pope John Paul II's fast-track canonization requires evidence of two documented miracles. And, within the past week, the world has witnessed miracles on land and sea: Air France Flight 358 and the AS-28 mini-submarine.

Two incredible stories. A plane skids off a Toronto runway, but none of its 309 occupants are killed. A Russian mini-submarine entangled helplessly on the bottom of the Pacific Ocean for three days is rescued with all seven crew members alive. Both of these events have been declared "miracles." If you need empirical evidence, just do a Google search of "Flight 358" and "miracle." 15,550 hits.

Miracles are elusive. Not just in their rarity, but in their definition. When we pronounce an event a "miracle," what exactly are we talking about? According to a recent report on "CBS Sunday Morning," researchers at the Mars company are developing new ways to manufacture chocolate that would retain much higher levels of flavanols, a compound found in cocoa beans and beneficial to the cardiovascular system. Think about it. Chocolate that's good for your heart. Is that a miracle? For some, miracles are that glib, that cheap.

But not for others. Italians by the thousands have streamed to the town of Accera in Naples to photograph a Virgin Mary statue that apparently has moved her legs. That is impressive. But the local bishop emeritus is skeptical, doubting that Mary would "make a spectacle of herself" in such a public way. So is that a miracle? Or is the miracle that thousands of pilgrims believe strongly enough to venture to a faraway and obscure city to pay witness?

Back to our recent miracles. The Russian submarine was saved, partly because Vladamir Putin sought to avoid the domestic and international scorn heaped upon him for failing to request help during a previous Russian naval crisis. So what is the miracle? Is it that the British rescue vessel reached the trapped seamen before their oxygen expired? Or is it that a powerful politician (implicitly) acknowledged error and learned from his mistake? Or is it something else?

Finally, Air France Flight 358. An even clearer example of a miracle. 15,550 Google hits say so. Even Canada's transportation minister said so. But is it a miracle at all? Reports seem to unanimously praise the flight crew and passengers for their calm resolve in exiting the craft. The crew apparently was well-trained in procedures for swift evacuation under such circumstances. Also, aviation experts cite very high survival rates for runway plane accidents. So does preparation + percentages = miracle?

On the other hand, although no one was killed, one internet poster, a plane crash survivor himself, warns the Flight 358 survivors to expect "years of post-traumatic stress disorders, panic attacks, and fear of flying phobia, perhaps for the rest of their lives." Also, on Friday, one Flight 358 passenger filed a $62 million lawsuit against Air France and the Toronto airport. Can a miracle be sued? Can a miracle have a dark side? Should a miracle have a dark side?

The need for miracles is understandable. But seeing them everywhere dilutes both complex human experiences and the rare, true miracles that do exist.

The Summer of Surprising Hope

2005-07-26T14:56:00.000-05:00

You know it's been a tough summer when both Darth Vader and Lord Voldemort emerge at the same time. And there was plenty to be sober about: heat waves, hurricanes, terrorist attacks. Still, more than ever, the serious always seemed to be battling the frivolous for airtime. We were mesmerized by ballroom dancing celebrities. We were stunned and uplifted to learn that beauties and geeks could co-exist. And then there was Tom. Tom and Katie, Tom and Oprah, Tom and Brooke, Tom and Matt. None of it was very pleasant, but it proved that people will watch Tom Cruise in anything. Somewhere during all of this, Tom fought a war against some space aliens, and we watched that too. Because, you know, we need more wars.

Politically, the summer was all heat and no fire. Like today's movie market, political stories opened huge and then fizzled during the second weekend. Remember the Downing Street Memo? The "smoking gun" document that would bring down the Bush administration. What was that memo about again? Remember Howard Dean's outrageous remarks that would rain down all sorts of trouble on the Democrats. No, I don't either. Now, we've got Karl Rove unmasked as the evil Leaker. Okay, that story must have legs, right? The President's chief political strategist revealing the name of an undercover CIA agent, and with Bush previously stating that he would fire anyone connected to the leak. This is big. This is going to be above the fold for months. What's that? The President nominated John Roberts for the Supreme Court? Wow, that must be one of the blandest names of all time. Still, I'm hooked, let's forget about that whole "Rove CIA thing." And on and on it goes.

Somewhere in the middle of the summer, there were also a lot of politicians making outrageous statements and a lot of politicians demanding apologies for those outrageous statements. I lost interest in all of those fireworks around the 4th of July. So, as I reread the above, it really makes the Summer of 2005 seem pretty bleak. Our country remains superficial, divided, and polarized. Would noone show us hope? Who would be our light-givers? Bizarrely enough, in our polarized state, the answer would be George Will and Anna Quindlen. Two Newsweek magazine contributors, one staunchly conservative, the other staunchly liberal. With little fanfare or notice, these writers, within the span of seven days, both appealed for American politicians to stop being so damn sure of themselves and listen to one another.

Conservative Will wrote in his May 23 column: "[T]he greatest threat to civility--and ultimately to civilization is an excess of certitude.....America is currently awash in an unpleasant surplus of clanging, clashing certitudes. That is why there is a rhetorical bitterness absurdly disproportionate to our real differences. It has been well said that the spirit of liberty is the spirit of not being too sure that you are right."

Liberal Quindlen added, one week later: "[T]he young men and women who began their college years in the shadow of September 11 graduate in its shadow as well. The intolerant, the monomaniacal, the zealots driven by religious certainty engineered the worst attack on American soil, and the result has been intolerance, monomania and zealotry driven by religious certainty."

I'm not sure if Will and Quindlen intended to present a joint argument. But the fact that the columns appeared back-to-back and were penned by two people who probably agree on very little politically does indeed make a very powerful argument to those, on both the left and the right, who have lost their way. In this very difficult and uncertain time, our country needs both sides to talk to each other, to break through barriers and perceptions that have stood too long and are too easily accepted, and realize the potential value of someone who thinks very differently. And if beauties and geeks can do it, anyone can.