Failure to Communicate
"What we've got here is failure to communicate." - Captain, in Cool Hand Luke
Both to its credit and to its detriment, the Obama administration does not seem to recognize that in today's America the appearance of competence, engagement, decisiveness, etc. is more important than the actuality.
Take the current BP oil spill as an example (the months-long management of the health care reform debate is another).
The President could have done little more than he actually has done. As he stated in his press conference last week, the White House has been engaged from "day one" and has been directing not only government's actions but BP's as well. The president seemed somewhat exasperated that he needed to make this point as part of a damage-control effort. Exasperation is understandable - he has enough on his plate without having to be excessively concerned with appearances.
The problem is that appearances are all that anybody outside the White House sees. Appearances are all we have to go on. In the absence of information, the media and the public naturally infer inaction, which they will interpret as obliviousness, lack of concern, indecisiveness or secrecy.
People crave a sense of urgency. Note the phrase carefully: "sense of urgency." Not actual urgency. A sense of urgency.
It might be argued - it should be argued - that the president of the United States of America has better things to do than worry about play-acting. What matters, after all, is results. The problem, though, is that results aren't always visible, and even when they are, they often need to be emphasized.
On the other hand, the inverse is also true - appearances tend to be taken at face value until a great deal of contrary evidence emerges. The widely incompetent and unengaged George W. Bush administration enjoyed a strong reputation for engagement and competence for years, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary, until the catastrophe of Katrina broke the illusion decisively. That unearned reputation had a lot to do with Bush's reelection.
In the case of this oil spill, as in numerous cases since he took office, the White House has failed to demonstrate engagement even as it was fully engaged. The result has been a series of distracting and unnecessary communication crises of varying severity which have had the cumulative effect of eroding some of the public's confidence in President Obama's leadership.
Ultimately, a full engagement with "message" is far from a mere concern with appearances - it is critical to creating a long-term environment in which the president can be left relatively free to focus on actual governance without the ever-increasing need to engage in damage-control exercises.
If the White House is serious about governing competently - which it surely is - then it should be much more serious about communicating competently. A failure to do so could lead to an irreversible deterioration of the public's faith in the president and, by November 2012, to a singularly unhappy - and decisive - result.
Both to its credit and to its detriment, the Obama administration does not seem to recognize that in today's America the appearance of competence, engagement, decisiveness, etc. is more important than the actuality.
Take the current BP oil spill as an example (the months-long management of the health care reform debate is another).
The President could have done little more than he actually has done. As he stated in his press conference last week, the White House has been engaged from "day one" and has been directing not only government's actions but BP's as well. The president seemed somewhat exasperated that he needed to make this point as part of a damage-control effort. Exasperation is understandable - he has enough on his plate without having to be excessively concerned with appearances.
The problem is that appearances are all that anybody outside the White House sees. Appearances are all we have to go on. In the absence of information, the media and the public naturally infer inaction, which they will interpret as obliviousness, lack of concern, indecisiveness or secrecy.
People crave a sense of urgency. Note the phrase carefully: "sense of urgency." Not actual urgency. A sense of urgency.
It might be argued - it should be argued - that the president of the United States of America has better things to do than worry about play-acting. What matters, after all, is results. The problem, though, is that results aren't always visible, and even when they are, they often need to be emphasized.
On the other hand, the inverse is also true - appearances tend to be taken at face value until a great deal of contrary evidence emerges. The widely incompetent and unengaged George W. Bush administration enjoyed a strong reputation for engagement and competence for years, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary, until the catastrophe of Katrina broke the illusion decisively. That unearned reputation had a lot to do with Bush's reelection.
In the case of this oil spill, as in numerous cases since he took office, the White House has failed to demonstrate engagement even as it was fully engaged. The result has been a series of distracting and unnecessary communication crises of varying severity which have had the cumulative effect of eroding some of the public's confidence in President Obama's leadership.
Ultimately, a full engagement with "message" is far from a mere concern with appearances - it is critical to creating a long-term environment in which the president can be left relatively free to focus on actual governance without the ever-increasing need to engage in damage-control exercises.
If the White House is serious about governing competently - which it surely is - then it should be much more serious about communicating competently. A failure to do so could lead to an irreversible deterioration of the public's faith in the president and, by November 2012, to a singularly unhappy - and decisive - result.