Tuesday, May 25, 2004
Bush's Speech
Today, Thason asked me for my thoughts on Bush's speech (being his go-to-guy for conservative thought). He had heard widely varying Republican responses to the speech, ranging for gushing to gagging. On the other hand, from my point of view, the Dems appear to have issued a talking point memo before the speech to emphasize that "there was nothing new in the speech." (Ok that last one was from Al Jazeera, but it was quoting a Dem think tank.) I find this response amusing as it contradicts other recent criticisms that Bush had no plan for Iraq).
Anyways, my thoughts were the following.
I liked the speech. While I didn't think Bush's oration was particularly good, the approach seemed reasonable and seemed to satisfy my limited desires for the speech. On a similar note, I find Bush's typical oration to be rather flat which is rather disappointing for an incumbent President. However, I saw his LSU commencement address on TV, and he was quite good - really seemed to engage the audience. I'm at a loss as to why his A game doesn't come out more regularly.
The Real Bush Speech Disorder
Trying to stay on topic, I think the variation in the responses to the speech from the right are an unfortunate side effect of Bush's speech disorder. No, I'm not referring to his malapropisms, that's something everyone does - I even have "malatypisms." I'm referring to Bush's tendency to only give major speeches infrequently. Bush rarely gives national addresses other than his weekly public radio addresses (which people listen to about as much as they read this blog). By my count, this is his third major address this calendar year (1. SOTU, 2. The April press conference, 3. This address to the War College which wasn't even carried by ABC,CBS,or NBC).
Giving just a few major addresses has the following salutary effects:
The real Bush speech disorder isn't his malapropisms or his delivery - it's the infrequency of his speeches.
The Bush Conundrum
Bush is faced with the following conundrum whenever he begins to prepare a speech:
By the very nature of the job, every President has this problem. However, because of his disorder, Bush denies himself the luxury of building his case over several speeches. Instead, Bush has generally tried to solve this conundrum by presenting the single rationale that will appeal to the widest audience. In light of his disorder, this is probably the wisest approach. (Not that Bush hasn't on occasion tried to cram everything into a single speech, recall the 2004 SOTU)
Under a best case scenario, Bush can find a single rationale that appeals to a wide enough swath of the public that it rallies the country. Case in point, the 2003 SOTU. However, because the public doesn't tune in to the minor addresses, another problem is created. Specifically, a perception is created that the case was made on the basis of a single rationale (or subset of the rationales). Again, see the 2003 SOTU and consider the rationales for the Iraq war. We all are aware of the WMD rationale, but how many are aware that the Bush administration presented 27 different rationales for the war? (See here) Because too few major speeches were given, there was not enough speaking time given to these other rationales on a broad national scale. So when we didn't find WMD on our way into Iraq, Bush got lambasted in the public arena. Further, when Bush wisely began to emphasize the other rationales in subsequent speeches, the public's natural focus on the WMD rationale opened up Bush for criticism that he's changing rationales after the fact (see here for an example of this criticism).
Under worst case scenarios, when there doesn't exist a single rationale that can sway a majority of the public, the public is simply not persuaded. Last night's speech was such a scenario. There is no single argument, rationale, or cause that can rally the public to support Bush's postwar efforts. The situation is simply too complex for a one-size-fits all approach. Too many people have too many divergent questions that need to be answered. In effect, there was simply too much material and too little time. Because I recognized this fact going in and didn't expect Bush to address every single question the country had in a single hour, I was reasonably happy with Bush's speech.
The Iraq Exam
To continue my argument by analogy, imagine that you're scheduled to take an exam which you only have 30 minutes to complete. You open the exam to see the following questions:
Even the best student would fail this test. There's simply not enough time. However, given sufficient time, a good student could do quite well on the test. A reasonable teacher would extend the time for his students to complete this test, perhaps giving the student a week to complete the test as a take home.
Last night, Bush failed this test. Simply too many questions and too little time. However, Bush is effectively both teacher and student. Bush the teacher can give Bush the student more time. Over the coming weeks, Bush needs to speak on the national stage again and again to extend the time he has to present his case. By giving several speeches, Bush doesn't have to answer every question in a single speech, just a handful like last night. However, just as a teacher cannot extend the test time beyond the end of a semester, Bush cannot wait to answer these questions indefinitely. Bush the student's semester ends in November. Bush the student would be wise complete the test before the Democratic convention, wiser still to complete the test before the June 30th handover date.
This test is simply too important for Bush to let himself fail.
Comments(0) |
Today, Thason asked me for my thoughts on Bush's speech (being his go-to-guy for conservative thought). He had heard widely varying Republican responses to the speech, ranging for gushing to gagging. On the other hand, from my point of view, the Dems appear to have issued a talking point memo before the speech to emphasize that "there was nothing new in the speech." (Ok that last one was from Al Jazeera, but it was quoting a Dem think tank.) I find this response amusing as it contradicts other recent criticisms that Bush had no plan for Iraq).
Anyways, my thoughts were the following.
I liked the speech. While I didn't think Bush's oration was particularly good, the approach seemed reasonable and seemed to satisfy my limited desires for the speech. On a similar note, I find Bush's typical oration to be rather flat which is rather disappointing for an incumbent President. However, I saw his LSU commencement address on TV, and he was quite good - really seemed to engage the audience. I'm at a loss as to why his A game doesn't come out more regularly.
The Real Bush Speech Disorder
Trying to stay on topic, I think the variation in the responses to the speech from the right are an unfortunate side effect of Bush's speech disorder. No, I'm not referring to his malapropisms, that's something everyone does - I even have "malatypisms." I'm referring to Bush's tendency to only give major speeches infrequently. Bush rarely gives national addresses other than his weekly public radio addresses (which people listen to about as much as they read this blog). By my count, this is his third major address this calendar year (1. SOTU, 2. The April press conference, 3. This address to the War College which wasn't even carried by ABC,CBS,or NBC).
Giving just a few major addresses has the following salutary effects:
1. More time is available for the day-to-day business of the Presidency.However, this tendency also has the following deleterious effects:
2. When Bush finally talks, people really tune in.
1. Expectations for each speech are raised ("The President is finally speaking, it must be really important"). However, a sufficiently prepared speaker can overcome this limitation and actually turn it to his advantage.It is this second point that I wish to consider. I hold as a truism that different people will hold the same position for different rationales. So to sway the public to a particular position, many different rationales (generally) must be presented. I also hold as a truism that it takes time to fully lay out a single coherent line of reasoning (just consider the length of this post where I'm just now getting to my thesis), and more complex rationales require more time. So when attempting to persuade the public to a complex position, a significant amount of time will be required. However, most people only have an attention span of about an hour and really only pay close attention to the first and last 10 minutes of a lecture. So because Bush chooses to give major speeches so infrequently, he limits his ability to rally the country to positions it does not already hold.
2. The time available for presenting a persuasive argument is compressed.
The real Bush speech disorder isn't his malapropisms or his delivery - it's the infrequency of his speeches.
The Bush Conundrum
Bush is faced with the following conundrum whenever he begins to prepare a speech:
How do you cram in everything you need to say in the space of an hour? (or, in this case, thirty minutes)Unfortunately, the answer is most of the time, you can't.
By the very nature of the job, every President has this problem. However, because of his disorder, Bush denies himself the luxury of building his case over several speeches. Instead, Bush has generally tried to solve this conundrum by presenting the single rationale that will appeal to the widest audience. In light of his disorder, this is probably the wisest approach. (Not that Bush hasn't on occasion tried to cram everything into a single speech, recall the 2004 SOTU)
Under a best case scenario, Bush can find a single rationale that appeals to a wide enough swath of the public that it rallies the country. Case in point, the 2003 SOTU. However, because the public doesn't tune in to the minor addresses, another problem is created. Specifically, a perception is created that the case was made on the basis of a single rationale (or subset of the rationales). Again, see the 2003 SOTU and consider the rationales for the Iraq war. We all are aware of the WMD rationale, but how many are aware that the Bush administration presented 27 different rationales for the war? (See here) Because too few major speeches were given, there was not enough speaking time given to these other rationales on a broad national scale. So when we didn't find WMD on our way into Iraq, Bush got lambasted in the public arena. Further, when Bush wisely began to emphasize the other rationales in subsequent speeches, the public's natural focus on the WMD rationale opened up Bush for criticism that he's changing rationales after the fact (see here for an example of this criticism).
Under worst case scenarios, when there doesn't exist a single rationale that can sway a majority of the public, the public is simply not persuaded. Last night's speech was such a scenario. There is no single argument, rationale, or cause that can rally the public to support Bush's postwar efforts. The situation is simply too complex for a one-size-fits all approach. Too many people have too many divergent questions that need to be answered. In effect, there was simply too much material and too little time. Because I recognized this fact going in and didn't expect Bush to address every single question the country had in a single hour, I was reasonably happy with Bush's speech.
The Iraq Exam
To continue my argument by analogy, imagine that you're scheduled to take an exam which you only have 30 minutes to complete. You open the exam to see the following questions:
1. What's the strategy for Iraq over the next year?(As a side note, I think these sort of questions would've been far better than those asked at the press conference debacle. Will you apologize for 9/11? Will you apologize for 9/11? Will you give Kerry a great sound bite, err, apologize for 9/11?)
2. Demonstrate through words that you are sufficiently committed to this strategy.
3. Describe the current security situation in Iraq. Give specific details about the steps that will be taken to improve security.
4. When are the troops coming home? Show that this date is consistent with the rest of your answers.
5. Are we sending more troops in the short term? If so, why? Detail the role you expect these troops to play.
6. Are we going to further internationalize the effort? If not, why not? If yes, how are we going to further internationalize the effort? Describe steps that will be taken to to ensure that this does not negatively impact your answer to question 1.
8. What's the next step in the war on terror?
9. When are we going to kick some ass?
10. When are we going to start playing nice?
11. How does Iraq fit into the larger picture?
12. What are our specific goals in the War on Terror?
13. Why are we doing this?
14. Why should you be the one to lead us?
15. What sort of government will Iraq have?
16. What sort of government should Iraq have?
17. When are we taking down that punk Sadr? What have we been doing in the meantime?
18. What about those responsible for the Fallujah incident?
19. Why haven't we previously resolved the Fallujah and Sadr situations?
20. Why didn't we just "glass" Fallujah?
21. What are you going to do about Abu Ghraib?
22. What's up with Chalabi?
23. What about Rumsfeld?
24. Any new news on WMD?
25. Any news on pre-war terrorist activities in Iraq?
26. How do your answers to 1-25 make us safer?
Extra Credit: Tie all your answers into a single entertaining narrative.
Even the best student would fail this test. There's simply not enough time. However, given sufficient time, a good student could do quite well on the test. A reasonable teacher would extend the time for his students to complete this test, perhaps giving the student a week to complete the test as a take home.
Last night, Bush failed this test. Simply too many questions and too little time. However, Bush is effectively both teacher and student. Bush the teacher can give Bush the student more time. Over the coming weeks, Bush needs to speak on the national stage again and again to extend the time he has to present his case. By giving several speeches, Bush doesn't have to answer every question in a single speech, just a handful like last night. However, just as a teacher cannot extend the test time beyond the end of a semester, Bush cannot wait to answer these questions indefinitely. Bush the student's semester ends in November. Bush the student would be wise complete the test before the Democratic convention, wiser still to complete the test before the June 30th handover date.
This test is simply too important for Bush to let himself fail.
Comments(0) |
