Barone: Time for fireside chats?

David Frum has a tough piece out today in National Review Online arguing that George W. Bush has been ineffective in persuading Americans to stay the course in Iraq. This is a direct slap not only at the president, but also at his speechwriters, and from a former colleague who served in the speechwriting office in 2001 and 2002. Frum argues that Bush makes the same case over and over again, and does not flesh it out with arresting details and enlightening narrative.

"The president could have made news yesterday by itemizing the reasons to regard Iraq more positively than most journalists do. He could have ticked off some of the achievements daily posted on the centcom.mil site. (Here's the latest.) He could have teased details even out of the mainstream media. (Mickey Kaus the other day noted that the reliably dour Robin Wright of the Washington Post casually mentioned in the course of her latest down-beater that Iraq has gone on a car-buying boom that has put a million new cars on the road since liberation. Kaus: 'A "car-buying boom"–another shocking failure! Don't they know about global warming?')."

He also suggested that Bush should make his case not just before cheering crowds, like the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Salt Lake City on Monday, but in other, more informal settings.

The obvious model, though Frum doesn't mention it, is the fireside chats delivered by Franklin Roosevelt. These were radio broadcasts, made at a time when radio was a new but already well-nigh-universal medium. The texts are conveniently collected in a FDR's Fireside Chats, edited by Russell D. Buhite and David W. Levy and published by the University of Oklahoma Press in 1992. Roosevelt delivered 14 of these talks, almost entirely on domestic issues, from March 1933 to June 1938, and another 18, almost entirely on foreign policy and war, from September 1939 to January 1945. In these talks Roosevelt often explained painstakingly the current posture of the war; before the chat of February 1942, the White House press office suggested that listeners might want to have an atlas or a globe at hand to follow the President's discussion of the war in the Atlantic and Pacific.

A few points on the wartime fireside chats generally. Most of them seem to run longer than Bush's speech in Salt Lake City—or at least the part of it devoted to the war on terrorism. Roosevelt's talks were run on the three radio networks then in existence, and evidently Americans were prepared to listen to them straight through. It's not clear that Americans today, with their 100-plus cable channels, are prepared to listen so long.

Second, by today's standards, the fireside chats are not particularly chatty. Their language seems to me pretty formal—though not as formal as Roosevelt's ceremonial speeches. The tone of public discourse has gotten more demotic over the last 60 years.

Third, as the war goes on, Roosevelt increasingly uses anecdote and narrative. He relates the stories of war heroes. Bush has not been doing this–one of Frum's complaints.

Fourth, Roosevelt was not afraid to take some pretty rough shots at his domestic political enemies. It is generally assumed today that there was some kind of unanimity about World War II. Not really. Roosevelt was criticized for putting a priority on the European Theater over the Pacific; after all, some said, hadn't it been the Japanese who attacked us? Not everyone forgot that many of his opponents charged before Pearl Harbor that he was provoking the Germans and the Japanese to attack us (indeed a strong case can be made that he was). The media of the day was mostly controlled and run by Republicans—some of them like Henry Luce of Time were supporters of Roosevelt's war policies, but others like Col. Robert McCormick of the Chicago Tribune (then the biggest-circulation broadsheet in the country) bitter critics.

Roosevelt clearly kept an eye on his enemies. In May 1940, as resistance to Hitler was collapsing in Western Europe, he noted that "there are a few among us who have deliberately and consciously closed their eyes [to foreign threats] because they were determined to be opposed to their government, its foreign policy, and every other policy, to be partisan, and to believe that anything that the government did was wholly wrong." Later in that chat he warned of a "fifth column that betrays a nation unprepared for treachery."

In July 1943, after the fall of Mussolini, he asserted, "It is our determination to restore those conquered peoples to the dignity of human beings, masters of their own fate, entitled to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want and freedom from fear. We have started to make good on that promise. I am sorry if I step on the toes of those Americans who, playing party politics at home, call that kind of foreign policy 'crazy altruism' and 'starry-eyed dreaming.'"

We don't hear this kind of acerbic aside from George W. Bush, and perhaps it is just as well. Certainly it would set many in the mainstream media howling. But maybe the president and his speechwriters might want to give it a try.

Frum is a former speech writer and that needs to be remembered whenever he remarks about those currently encharged with the duties. He has a bias, and wasn't he one of the ones that didn't like the Inaugural if I remember correctly even though the vast majority admitted it was historic? I suspect because he didn't write it.

Just want to put that out there. I DO think there is merit to attempting to construct a NEW "fireside chat" but not because Frum is making waves.

The trouble is how you go about it. I'm not certain Americans are going to sit around the radio anymore for a briefing from the president at a designated time, nor is TV the answer. How do you update it to appeal in this age? That would be an interesting idea to brainstorm about it.

I DO think there is merit to attempting to construct a NEW "fireside chat" but not because Frum is making waves.

I agree. Personally, I prefer listening to Bush's radio addresses when I can. He just seems more relaxed.

The trouble is how you go about it. I'm not certain Americans are going to sit around the radio anymore

My wife and I do. She works on making jewelry and I do my coding or work on a parody while we listen. And yup, we have a fireplace. :o)

Pukin, Frum is right on this one. Bush was strong on whiping up support at the beginning of this thing, but he's just said the same thing over and over. He needs to tell us more. The people would support both him and the war if they knew that we are making a difference, and him just telling us "We're making a difference" just isn't good enough. He needs to tell us the wonderful things our military is accomplishing over there.

When you repeat the same thing over and over it's good to a point, but you need to throw some new stuff in there as well or people stop listening.

He learned a long time ago that he had to ask for people's votes, he needs to know that he has to ask for people's support. We support him because we know what he's doing, and we know what the troops are accomplishing, but the average American doesn't know.

Sometimes I find Frum annoying, but I couldn't agree more with what he has said. And if you read his blog you will see that many also agree.

I LOVE President Bush and appreciate the fact that he is consistent and doesn't sway with the polls. However the administration is doing a poor job of dealing with the attacks on them and with explaining what is going on in Iraq.

The main message doesn't need to change, but sometimes I feel like I am hearing a broken record. If I hear "we are making good progress" one more time, I will scream. They need to do a better job of talking about the good things that are going on and explaining how we are dealing with the bad things. I know the media isn't fair, but that is a given and something that you have to work around.

Right now I feel like the country needs some bucking up and a stronger spine. It is partially President Bush's responsibility to use his bully pulpit to do that, and I just don't think he is doing the good job of it that he should, IMO. (And I think he is capable of doing better.)

This doesn't really change my opinion of him, which is still highly positive, but I don't mind people like Frum and others pointing this out, because I hope it will affect a change, which I believe is sorely needed.

I wouldn't exactly mind radio either, but I'm curious if there is a way to go about making weekly radio 'chats' THE place to be in the 21st century? And if radio can be revived to use in that sense, or if it'll have to come from a new forum like the net? Though internet 'chats' are not "free" enough that anyone can participate.

I think Americans would actually like a way to feel more connected to the President and hear the details the press doesn't report, but it needs to be packaged to "sell" to a new audience, as anything does in this age.

Here is a comment to Frum from someone in the Air Force that expresses my feelings better than I did above:

"Great article on the President's inability to enunciate a proper strategy and tactical speech. For a year I have bemoaned this fact with my friends. I was a Bush/Cheney precinct captain, and joined the Air Force AFTER we went to war against Saddam. No one believes in the mission more than I do.

"However, why is the President seemingly incapable of stating anything more than superfluous fluff? Why can he not mention, 'We have built 1,340 schools, 27 hospitals, we have captured 22 senior Al-Queda terrorists, we are shepherding democracy'?!!

"I am so frustrated with a seeming detachment from reality that the White House possesses.

"Every half-way intelligent person realizes there is a huge news vacuum in August. So the White House decides to announce a "vacation" which brings 200 bored journalists to Crawford with nothing to do other than cover Cindy?!! She has gotten more press coverage than any administration figure in the last few weeks. They need to get SPECIFIC- this is how many units we have trained, this is how many weapons dumps we have discovered and destroyed, this is how many terrorists we have taken out, this is how many police and National Guard are on patrol, this is how many toys we have handed out. It is not brain surgery here- you need to give some hope to the people that progress is being made."

He doesn't have to do a fireside chat. Bush is good at anidotes. All he has to do is throw in a couple of "You know what our troops did the other day? They brought water to a village that had never had clean drinking water ever" or something funny that happened between soldiers and Iraqis, just a few of those each time he talks, change them up enough so people look forward to the little stories. He can keep the rest of the speech the same, but salt them with stories of what the troops are accomplishing.

Just have one of the speech writers reading the CENTCOM website and you'll find tons of hearwarming stories.

The media won't tell them, President Bush should tell them because people would love to hear them.

I've seen cable and satellite "radio" really take off in a number of markets. I know that some government agencies have dedicated channels on cable and satellite feeds.

I'm thinking a relaxed "slide show" (fade in, fade out, nothing harsh) of images that relate to the topics of the week can show on the screen while President Bush is giving his radio address. I think this sort of thing, if handled with simple elegance, would go over reasonably well. I know I'd watch.

What do you think?

I agree with the basic premise that W has been ineffectual in rallying the home front, and in countering the liberal caterwauling.

He needs to publicize the war effort, not rely on the rats/MSM, who wish the country ill.

He needs to forcefully denounce his accusers, and label them appropriately.

Unfortunately, God love him, he is not Ronald Reagon.

Frum and Barone are both correct. This is a president who has been frustratingly unwilling to use his bully pulpit to its full advantage.

I don't expect Bush to change this; it's just not the type of guy he is. He's not a Franklin Roosevelt type of president -- and even though FDR tended to be a manipulative, bullying socialist jerk, he was a far more effective communicator than Bush has ever been or probably ever will be.

-Dan

Nope, sorry.

You see, it's not Bush's job to make us feel better. It is his job to lead. The danger of leading is that some wont follow. A leader does not worry about who is following him, he stays on course. It is our job to defend him, not his job to prop us up. His job is hard enough without worry about whether or not we "get it". If we don't get it by now, that is our problem, not his. Bush says what he means and he means what he says, and that is enough for me.

McGavin999, sounds something similiar to what he did in his speech today or introducing the Iraqi woman to the woman who lost a son at his SOU. I agree, simple acts like these are genuine, heart warming and chalk full of Truth. Introducing these elements in all his speeches would do wonders.

Prime Choice, not a bad idea but not everyone has cable which can be a problem. I know the Liberals will decry it as 'government sponsered propaganda', but that is only because it would effectively cut through the sole visuals of the bombings.

He needs to forcefully denounce his accusers, and label them appropriately.

Why? We can label them ourselves, cant we? We are not stupid, and don't need to be hypnotized by rhetoric to feel better. We are Conservatives, not babies. Bush is not our father. He should do nothing more than ignore his accusers, and not even give them the benefit of his attention. He has a job to do.

Completely wrong. Like it or not, Bush's job IS to make the American public "feel better" by providing constant, regular, SPECIFIC updates about what is being accomplished where. Every time he gives a nationally televised speech on the war, his numbers go up. And then he allows months of leftist media spin to go unanswered, and so the numbers go right back down again. The short attention span of the American public isn't his fault, but it IS a reality, and one that it is his job to deal with if he wants to keep support for the war high.

-Dan

Would have to disagree with that. I think he has been very effective when he concentrates on rallying support. But as noted he doesn't focus attention to doing that every day while the press spends every moment tearing down support. Therein is the difference.

But, in fairness, WE don't spend every day countering them either while the MSM carries on their offensive, so we share some blame in that as well.

As to being Reagan, Reagan fought a Cold War with fewer deaths of armed personal. Reagan would have difficulty, no matter communication levels, in a war of this armed nature that will linger for years with body counts rising. It's just the nature of the American psyche.

I personally have no desire he be Ronald Reagan. Good men both, but I voted for G.W.B. and not because Reagan wasn't on the ticket.

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.