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
Add to Briefcase
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.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.