Posted on 07/27/2007 7:37:37 AM PDT by rhema
I defended George W. Bush's intelligence to journalists in 1999 and 2000.
I still do, but with some nuances related to Joel Belz's observation in last week's WORLD that the president does a poor job of explaining why he does what he does.
I used to explain that Bush was business-management-smart rather than graduate-student-smart, a la Bill Clinton. When I knew Bush during the 1990s—and reports indicate that he hasn't changed—he did not like bull sessions. He wanted practical options laid out without wasted words. He did not want to talk about his decisions. His goal was to make them and let the results do the talking.
Well, it turns out that being grad-student-smart has two uses. I knew one and incorrectly discounted it. I did not comprehend the second.
The one I knew is that top journalists are grad-student-smart rather than management-smart, and if a president won't play with them they won't play with him. Mediacrats have not only a liberal bias but, unsurprisingly, a pro-communications bias. When they view a president as not only ideologically wrong but unable or unwilling to speak their language, they pounce.
The use I didn't understand is that a grad-student-smart willingness to debate everything is the antidote to a communications lockdown. TeamBush's lockdown initially seemed like a strength in opposition to leak-happy Clintonistas. The Bush business-smart idea was to develop a shrewd inside plan and stick to it, without having a public (and often messy) debate about alternatives.
That made sense in one way. President Bush saw no reason to give his media opponents ammunition. He wanted to develop the most leak-free administration in modern times. He has succeeded.
Freedom from leaks, though, often has meant freedom from broad debate. From poverty-fighting to Iraq, the administration has circled the wagons when challenged. The Bush administration became smart tactically but weak strategically—and in the absence of a strategy to educate the American public about some crucial issues, the tactics worked only for a while.
For example, look what happened to the faith-based initiative in 2001, even before 9/11 altered everything. When opposition to Christian involvement inevitably surfaced, Bush strategists did not work on educating the American public. Instead, they proposed legislation that included what one White House advisor called a "stealth provision" for creation of a system of social service vouchers. The voucher plan was and is sensible and constitutional: With vouchers the government does not support any particular religion, but merely empowers individuals to choose where to go for assistance. I wanted Bush & Company to go out and fight for a voucher plan, especially because I didn't think that sneaking it through was either ethical or politically wise.
When I found out journalistically about the stealth provision and disclosed that information, liberal journalist Bill Berkowitz was astonished: "I have to admit that since I read Olasky's piece I've been scratching my head as to why he would provide so many details on the inner workings of the White House. When I figure out the answer to this question, I'll be certain to let you know."
Well, the answer then and since is that at WORLD we're journalists, not politicians. We really believe in what Puritan poet John Milton wrote 360 years ago: "Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple; who ever knew truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?"
The Bush administration never encouraged that free and open encounter. Its stifling tactics hurt the development of ideas and turned out to be not even PR-essential. TeamBush did not take seriously enough a big change: Conservative talk shows and blogs, although still possessing modest firepower compared to that of the media-industrial complex, now reach a wide audience, especially when Fox News picks up their themes.
The media change means that liberal orthodoxies no longer go unchallenged and Republicans no longer go undefended. Those with alternative ideas can now find venues. Transparency brings criticism but it is not politically suicidal.
The Bush administration did not take that change to heart. Now it's too late.
Olasky ping.
Add to the above the asinine retention of an ineffectual press secretary stubbornly kept on for too many years......uninspired, repetitively-trite speech writers......comotose PR staff......tone-deaf President.....the lack of guts to support besieged appointees and the lack of articulation to explain why they should not be under siege.......the mind-numbing refusals to counter the treasonous Dems in the Senate and House who say anything, do anything and commit aid and comfort to the enemy with wild abandon but continue without substantive direct challenge.....shall I go on?
I look for little or no change till a new administration is sworn in. I hope our cause survives that long without total division and irreparable political damage.
This is just around the corner (actually a lot of it is already here) as the writer (who is late to the dance himself) postulates above.
Leni
If you want propagandists for presidents, there are many countries that you might like better. The media is just lazy and also refuses to report what Bush does say. They call the WH secret to cover their tracks.
..and, in the past 2 years or so, have noticed a 'sea change' that has left me disquieted .... questioning their belief in the 'world view' I thought we mutually shared.
I didn't leave....but I think they have.
IMO, there has been a subtle shift ....a 'red flag' shift,IMO...and WHY I read WORLD.. less, and question it more....
Here....he talks about WORLD..being 'journalistic' rather than 'political'......
hmmm...that must be why they gave the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act/Amnesty ....such scant attention.
And the stingy half page & pc wording (when they finally, after weeks of major crisis, reported) ... made it thin reading indeed.
Silly me thinking they would have the strengh of conviction to call it what it was and to alert their readers!!
He's a little late to the party, IMO.
..but better late than never, maybe....whatever.
and btw, your #3 is well said....well said indeed!
Yes, and Bush, like others before him are answering to who ever is telling them what to do. As for immigration and the North American deal; he ain’t talking because this is not American’s business in he and he bosses’ viewpoint.
OMG....many of we freepers have been saying this for years.....and have been flamed mightily for it on many an occasion.
Yep, happened just yesterday with me on a thread.
“If you want propagandists for presidents, there are many countries that you might like better.”
Propagandists?
Come on Claire, be serious! We didn’t want a propagandist, just a leader that was capable of giving his guests directions to the ladies room.
Surely you can see that President Bush’s’ inability to communicate even the most simple position is a fatal flaw in any leader.
I don’t think Reagan was any smarter than GWB, but he had the ability to get his ideas across to the American people.
Don’t tell me the press was any more inclined to support Reagan than GWB.
I do not think the leftist media are lazy. I think they are energetically furthering their leftist agenda.
Your analysis is so on the mark. This is why I’m always reading FreeRepublic.
They are also very lazy, intellectually. They want to sit in a room and be briefed or cover something they see on TV.
He communicates well enough to have gotten elected twice. His extemp on the rubble in NYC after 911 roused everyone. Wise up. When you swallow the leftist critical soundbites whole, at least admit it.
Leadership not only involves making difficult choices, it also requires the ability to convince your troops to follow you through the breach.
The author is right. And so is MinuteGal. The Bush administration has been an absolutely lousy communicator -- to the public and to its troops.
FreeRepublic and its members have done a better job of defending the Bush administration against the onslaught of the left than they have defending themselves.
The lesson is clear. The next (comparatively) conservative administration should realize that communications passivity and leaving the PR field to the left is self-defeating. Reagan succeeded, not by clamming up, but by going around the media.
The next conservative president must recognize that the MSM is not neutral, it is an enemy. An enemy to be fought...and defeated on the field of ideas.
Now, there is an effective alternative media -- something which Reagan never had -- and there are troops ready to be marshaled. But it will require leadership...and that demands communication.
I think your interpretation is 100% backwards. Think back to when you started thinking that Bush was a lousy communicator and who made you think that. Then you might understand that you have bought into the media idea that the presidency is just a background for their own careers. Nobody worked harder or offered more press opportunities that Rumsfeld, yet what we got was an agenda driven Chinese torture version emphasizing only casualties. Hold onto your view and you play right into their hands. You get a media presidency which is all spion and no substance..
And who are his bosses?
Exactly, I’ll bet those who are talking about a strong leader who convinces did not want that last month when they were opposing the president on the immigration bill. Do they want someone who forces his ideas on the people or who follows the will of the people?
It could be a number of people?
Completely agree. And Rumsfeld was quite effective.
Problem is, it's an isolated case. Do you have another example...?
I'm not interested in a media-driven presidency anymore than you are. I'm just asking that the administration I helped vote into office engage in the argument and help defend our mutually shared principles.
Oddly, they've been doing a pretty good job of engaging in the argument and defending principles on one recent issue. Unfortunately, the issue was immigration...
Reagan was able to use the MSM, despite their animosity toward him. The Bush administration has media opportunities Reagan never had. Yet, they seem reluctant to use them and thoroughly cowed by the MSM.
I remain convinced that, some day, a conservative President will have to openly challenge the MSM and call them what they are -- rabid partisans, with a socialist agenda. And, if he does this, he will start a confrontation that he will win.
Right on the money.
You want to know if I have examples other than Rumsfeld. Well I have many times watched Bush draw and greatly please crowds of ten thousand people. Lately, I am admiring the way the R's are holding together and running circles around the Dems. I'd say they are communicating beautifully. They accomplised almost everything they promised and a lot more, besides.
They hold those press briefings all over Washington and we only see Defense, state, and White House. The media are a pack of conformists who would rather thet their own face on TV than show us what the real actors say. I go to White House.gov and read the president's speeches.
I cannot compare to Reagan era, because I was not paying attention then. One R said the media has not been this biased since the 70's. Rush calls the last election the Mark Foley election, and that was a vicious lynching by the media. Don't blame the president. These people are vicious and ruthless, and we need to fight them with our eyes wide open.
On that, we can agree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.