|
 The
Not So Great Communicator
Mr.
President, you know how you are?...
[Doug Gamble] 4/18/06
On an episode
of “The Mary Tyler Moore Show” news director Lou
Grant calls anchorman Ted Baxter into his office to talk about
Ted’s off-putting personality.
“Ted,” says
Lou, “you know how you are?” “Yes,” replies
Ted. “Don’t be that way,” says Lou.
Suggestion
to President George W. Bush: Don’t be that way.
Contributor
Doug Gamble
Doug
Gamble is a former writer for President Ronald Reagan
and resides in Carmel. [go to Gamble index] |
As someone
who still agrees with the decision to invade Iraq, I find myself
hampered in debates with war
opponents by the fact
I find Bush unlikable. It’s a strange mind split to be
defending the actions of someone I don’t like, one that
probably impacts to some extent on the effectiveness of my arguments,
and I know it’s something some other Republicans are experiencing
as well.
Just as
Mahatma Gandhi answered, “I think it would be
a good idea,” when asked his opinion of western civilization,
the same response could apply to a question soliciting reaction
to Bush’s personality.
FDR’s persona was confident. Harry Truman’s was
gritty. Dwight Eisenhower’s was grandfatherly. John Kennedy’s
was dynamic. Lyndon Johnson’s was crude. Richard Nixon’s
was devious. Jerry Ford’s was fumbling. Jimmy Carter’s
was self-righteous. Ronald Reagan’s was inspirational.
George H.W. Bush’s was prissy. Bill Clinton’s was
unctuous.
Our current president’s? I don’t know. Bland? There’s
no there there.
Party and ideology completely aside, and comparing communications
skills, persuasive powers and podium presence only, it might
have been better if Bush had been president during the uneventful
Clinton years and visa versa. When Clinton was president there
was no need, unlike now, to rally the country behind a critical
cause, to win flagging hearts and wavering minds.
Bush would have been fine at fronting the small ideas of the
Clinton years. Clinton, so persuasive he was able to convince
a large segment of the U.S. population that oral sex is not really
sex, would be better at satisfying Americans that invading Iraq
and staying the course are the right decisions.
This is
a bad time to have a poor communicator as president of the
United States, but that’s what we have. In an op-ed
piece in 2000 I described Bush’s lips as the place where
words go to die, and there has been little improvement since
then. While he is able to rouse himself to deliver a pretty good
speech at a major event, such as a GOP national convention, State
of the Union Address or the speech to Congress after 9/11, his
day to day speeches -- the ones where he should be effectively
selling the correctness of his course in the war on terror --
are mostly pedestrian and uninspiring.
Bush is
not only a lame duck but a strange bird when it comes to his
speaking style. At times he sounds as
though he his pleading
with his audience to understand what he is saying, and at others
he comes across as condescending, trying to educate people too
stupid to “get it.” Pleading does not inspire confidence
and speaking down to an audience does not score points.
In listening
to excerpts of some of FDR’s “Fireside
Chats,” I was struck by the contrast in the communications
styles of the two wartime presidents. There is not a hint of
condescension in President Roosevelt’s addresses. On the
contrary, his listeners are treated as equals, made to feel that
they and their president are all in this together, that he is
taking them into his confidence.
And while Roosevelt painted a grim picture when the facts required,
his confidence that good would prevail over evil was infectious.
Bush, trying to cajole understanding from an audience, does not
inspire confidence.
Though presiding over the country during some of its darkest
days, Roosevelt never lost his charm. Bush, on the other hand,
has a look on his face like he is constantly annoyed or he just
took a bite of something disagreeable. A comedian described it
as appearing as though he is always looking into the sun. It
is not a pleasant look. It contributes to his unlikability and
his unlikability is being reflected in his poll numbers.
My hunch
is that Bush would not score well these days in the “beer” test,
where voters are asked which politician they’d prefer to
have a beer with. Bush doesn’t seem like a nice guy. He
doesn’t even seem sincere. That phony “heh-heh-heh” laugh
makes one wonder if he’s capable of laughing at anything
genuinely. His tendency to look distracted or disinterested at
town hall meetings makes one wonder if he cares about being with
people. There are even Republicans who would not want to share
a beer with Bush, although, as November gets closer, we might
want some hemlock.
Bush’s physical appearance on the platform is perplexing.
On some occasions his body language is belligerent, on others
it’s slumped and resigned. Sometimes his body language
says, “I know what I’m doing;” sometimes it
says, “Look, I can’t believe I’m president
either, but go along with me on this.”
I know that presidents have good days and bad days like the
rest of us, but I don’t recall Reagan changing his platform
appearance from one day to another. Reagan was always Reagan.
How we need him now as a communicator.
The ability
of a president to communicate effectively is important at any
time, but even more so in momentous times
like these.
Although it’s probably unprecedented for a politician to
hire a speech coach when all his election campaigns are behind
him, I wish Bush would do so for the sake of better leading the
country. And he might hire an acting coach while he’s at
it.
Bush will never be an FDR or a Winston Churchill in his presentation
skills. But during dangerous times with more peril ahead, America
deserves a president who at least looks and sounds like one. -one-
California-based
Doug Gamble contributed speech material to Presidents Reagan
and George H.W. Bush, writes occasional opinion columns
for the Orange County Register and is a senior contributor
totheOneRepublic / CaliforniaRepublic.org.
Copyright
2006 Doug Gamble
§
|
