Is the White House Lying or Just Bad at Crisis Communications?

Ordering a cheeseburger with fries while a downed airline smolders may not have been a great decision.

Getty Images
National Journal
Ron Fournier
July 21, 2014, 5:11 a.m.

Pres­id­ent Obama’s de­cision to stick with his sched­ule of fun­draisers and photo op­por­tun­it­ies amid twin for­eign policy crises eli­cited one of the strangest state­ments you’ll ever see from a White House.

“It is rarely a good idea to re­turn to the White House just for show, when the situ­ation can be handled re­spons­ibly from the road,” said Jen­nifer Palmieri, the White House com­mu­nic­a­tions dir­ect­or. “Ab­rupt changes to his sched­ule can have the un­in­ten­ded con­sequence of un­duly alarm­ing the Amer­ic­an people or cre­at­ing a false sense of crisis.”

Where do I start?

First, the phrase “just for show” is in­dic­at­ive of the Obama White House con­ceit that their guy is above polit­ics. The fact is, all pres­id­ents do things just for show, be­cause the of­fice is in­her­ently polit­ic­al, and one of the levers of power can be found in the pub­lic theat­er. Think of Ab­ra­ham Lin­coln’s split rails, Wil­li­am McKin­ley’s front porch, Theodore Roosevelt’s whistle-stops, Frank­lin Roosevelt’s fireside chats — oh, and Barack Obama’s en­tire 2008 cam­paign, not to men­tion his “bear-on-the-loose” jaunts with or­din­ary Amer­ic­ans.

The hy­po­crisy is stag­ger­ing. How is play­ing pool and drink­ing beer with the gov­ernor of Col­or­ado not “just for show”? Obama and his team con­sist­ently re­spond to cri­ti­cism by dis­miss­ing the me­dia’s fo­cus on “op­tics,” even as they craft and con­trol the pres­id­ent’s im­age more ag­gress­ively than per­haps any pre­vi­ous White House.

Second, while Palmieri is cor­rect that gut­ting a pres­id­en­tial sched­ule is rarely a good idea, there are times when it is. You could make an ar­gu­ment that Thursday was one such time, when the Ga­za Strip erup­ted with vi­ol­ence and Rus­si­an Pres­id­ent Vladi­mir Putin’s al­lies shot a pas­sen­ger plane from the sky. A pres­id­ent can bring calm and clar­ity to a con­fus­ing situ­ation, or he can add to pub­lic anxi­ety.

About the time a Rus­si­an news agency re­por­ted 23 Amer­ic­ans were aboard the downed liner — a re­port that was re­spons­ibly at­trib­uted and dis­trib­uted by U.S. news agen­cies — Obama was or­der­ing lunch with a single moth­er at the Char­coal Pit in Delaware.

That tweet was based on my know­ledge of how a White House works in crisis. It hap­pens: Har­row­ing news pierces the se­cur­ity bubble, and a pres­id­en­tial aide tells the pres­id­ent, “I think we should go, sir.” Let’s fig­ure out what’s hap­pen­ing, and make sure we’re not the part of an em­bar­rass­ing split screen on cable TV.

The Rus­si­an re­port was wrong, which isn’t a sur­prise, and which doesn’t sub­stan­tially al­ter the ur­gency of the mo­ment: Let’s go, sir. Later on Thursday, I con­firmed with a White House of­fi­cial that there was a dis­cus­sion among pres­id­en­tial aides in Delaware about the poor tim­ing of the res­taur­ant stop.

The third prob­lem with Palmieri’s quote is the most ob­vi­ous — “un­duly alarm­ing the Amer­ic­an people or cre­at­ing a false sense of crisis.”

Un­duly alarm­ing? False sense of crisis? A ground war in the Middle East and rain­ing bod­ies over Ukraine are cause for alarm. These were no false crises — no more than the string of second-term con­tro­ver­sies that have un­der­mined Obama’s cred­ib­il­ity are “false scan­dals.”

This points to the fun­da­ment­al prob­lem with Obama’s com­mu­nic­a­tions eth­os: He and his ad­visers are so cer­tain about their mor­al and polit­ic­al stand­ing that they be­lieve it’s enough to make a de­clar­a­tion. If we say it, the pub­lic should be­lieve it.

That’s not how it works. A pres­id­ent must earn the pub­lic’s trust. He must teach and per­suade; speak clearly, and fol­low word with ac­tion; show em­pathy to­ward his rivals, and ac­know­ledge the mer­its of a cri­tique. A suc­cess­ful pres­id­ent pays care­ful at­ten­tion to how his im­age is pro­jec­ted both to U.S. voters and to the people of the world. He knows that to be strong, a lead­er must look strong. Im­age mat­ters, es­pe­cially in an era so dom­in­ated by them.

In the story that quoted Palmieri, New York Times journ­al­ist Mi­chael D. Shear re­por­ted that White House aides “gave no con­sid­er­a­tion to abandon­ing the pres­id­ent’s long-planned sched­ule” on Thursday. No con­sid­er­a­tion, really? Is this White House so stub­born and out of touch that pres­id­en­tial ad­visers didn’t even con­sider tweak­ing his sched­ule? Un­less the White House lied to Shear, the an­swer is yes.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 5109) }}

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
4 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
4 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
4 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
4 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
5 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×