I have never been particularly inclined to toot my own horn. But I once had a job where I allowed a jealous peer to define my performance in the mind of our mutual boss. My reticence to talk about my accomplishments hurt my career considerably. I realized that it was not enough to do a good job; it was also necessary to make sure the boss knew I was doing a good job.
Last week I heard Rush say that the Obama administration will be like Clinton's in that they will never stop campaigning. But I'm not sure this is such a bad thing. I fact, I think it is perhaps the greatest failure of the Bush administration. Of course, Clinton took it too far, using his campaign techniques to obscure the truth and keep the masses deceived (as Obama will do). But Bush has utterly failed to use his prominence as president to simply keep the troops rallied, which I think is not only a legitimate leadership practice but also a necesssary one. Instead, in the name of being "presidential" and staying above the political fray, he has allowed the adversary to define his performance in the mind of the boss (the electorate). This failure on his part has now cost us dearly.
"As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence" (Benjamin Franklin).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
We must never be silent. And there will be plenty to be noisy about. Our precious freedoms are under attack on every front. If you take your rights for granted, you will wake up one day without them. This guy and his minions are going to use every hour of every day to suppress us and destroy our nation. We must be equal to the task.
I think you're right, Dave.
There was always a certain nobility about Bush's communications failures: I never heard him - not once - return in kind the vicious, horrible, obscene attacks that were leveled at him, his family, and his closest advisors. he didn't attack when attacked, but then, neither did he defend or explain.
Nonetheless, noble or not, he did fail in this vital aspect of his job. His ostensibly admirable restraint probably cost him a dozen percentage points in the polls over the past few years and arguably cost the Republicans the White House in 2008. (After all, the Obama ran largely against Bush, not McCain.)
Bush made the mistake of assuming that the president should be above the fray. The reality is, the president is in the very middle of the fray; he's the very reason for the fray.
Harry Truman would understand. So does Newt Gingrich.
I can't help but wonder what Bush and Obama are discussing in the Oval Office at this very moment. Is the president trying his best to talk his successor out of closing Gitmo, signing the Freedom of Choice bill, and a host of other Obama agenda items that Bush has stood steadfastly against for eight years? Or is that inappropriate for a president? Does Mr. Bush really believe anything? David said, "I believe, therefore I have spoken." No speaking indicates to me a lack of deeply held belief.
I have to believe that for this deal today it's, "And here, Mr. President elect, is the White House theatre. Now, let me show you what this button does. . ." I think lobbying Obama would be futile.
Brian: I think you're right. And Dave, I think we really ought to credit Bush with having done the right thing on a number of very thorny moral issues. How deeply held are his beliefs. I don't know, but I do see that his actions have been the right ones on many ocassions when it might have been easier and pore political expedient to take an easier road.
Bill, I don't disagree with you. My complaint is that he doesn't publically contend for these things. He doesn't rally the troops. It's all done on the QT. When Congress wouldn't approve his judges, he mentioned it in a State of the Union address, but he didn't get angry. He didn't keep up the public pressure. He just seems so passive at times.
What's needed on our side is a teacher, one with street smarts, the courage of a lion and the tenacity of a bulldog.
The right will never win any policy debates on public issues if the discussion remains at the emotional level. The left beats us every time in that arena.
After all, what's so bad about redistributing the wealth? The rich have plenty to "share" and sharing is patriotic. Yeah, doggone it! What's so bad about socialized health care?! Yeah, doggone it! What's so bad about a department of peace, confiscation of firearms, confiscatory taxes, a civil security force, cap and trade, gay marriage? Yeah, doggone it! What's wrong with using aborted infants in scientific experiments? What's wrong with the right to choose? Yeah, doggone it!
You can't answer these emotional arguments with a counter emotional argument. And you can't just toss off accusations like, "That's socialism." The typical voter doesn't care if it's socialism, marxism or any other kind of ism. Those are all abstractions. That's policy-wonk stuff. The left's fantastical emotional appeals all sound good and reasonable to them. That's why we need a teacher, someone who can take the policy argument from the emotional level to the intellectual level.
What's needed in other words is a Newt Gingrich without the negatives. A Newt Gingrich for the Obama era.
I just heard that Newt is putting himself forward to be head of the RNC. That may be the perfect place for him, working behind the scene. I'm sure he understands the need to purge and rebuild.
Bill, in response to your post, I'm not available! But, seriously, Bush, with certain exceptions, never had the courage to expend any of his political capital. One of those exceptions was stem cell research. For the most part, however, Bush took it for granted that America was two societies, one that believes in things like the sanctity of life, and another that doesn't want any tiny, helpless human being getting in the way of its career, pastimes, etc. He never used his bully pulpit to change much of this. He didn't want to offend the other half. And I do give him credit for the anti-abortion stance he took. But for the most part, he never tried to lead anybody anywhere, with the exception of the war. And when you're the president, and your view of government is that anything goes, that the Treasury is a big piggy bank, you aren't much use to our side. His betrayal of conservatives far outweighed the good he did. And I'd say that we, the people, and our ministers and priests and pastors, should take the responsibility for promoting traditional morality. You can't expect politicians to do that anymore.
As for Newt, I have to respectfully disagree. I think he's a spent force, with negatives that overshadow any assets he can bring. Remember that after first resisting the foolish, failed mother-of-all-bailouts, some insiders got hold of him and, shaken up, he endorsed the bailout. I think he's become a creature of the Beltway. When he achieved his revolution, he had great opportunities, which he squandered. Etched in my mind is a picture of him sitting with that race pimp Jesse Jackson. I forget the occasion, but that told me all I needed to know.
We need some new leaders. Is it Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, Paul Ryan? I don't know; I guess we'll see. First, we need to win the "civil war" against the treacherous McCainiacs. And, by the way, we're going to learn to hate McCain himself all over again, I predict.
You make good points, Brian. I understand where you're coming from reagding Newt, but I'm not convinced he doesn't still have a role to play. I saw him defend Sarah Palin to an Obama Kool-Aid drinking reporter, and he was just fabuluous. He's smart, he's quick. Perfect? No. But there's still a there there, to my mind.
Regarding Sarah Palin, I respect her and feel she was treated beyond abominably, but I don't see here as the leader we need. Don't get me wrong; she has a role to play, but I'll refer back to my earlier comment: we need a teacher, one who not only has the intincts to do the right thing, but also the ability to bring people along at an intellectual level. Remember, by the time Ronald Reagan sought the highest office, he had spent the better part of a lifetime thinking and writing about his political convictions. You can actually watch his views evolve in the course of his writing. He not only knew what he believed, but why. That lifetime of deep thought translated into incredibly effective communications. Was he a prig,a know-it-all, a pedagogue? No. But his clarity of thought about his politcial convictions informed everything he did. Voters sensed all this.
Fair enough, Bill. Even if Sarah might not be our Joe Montana or John Elway, she should still be on the team as a solid contributor. The Montanas, Elways and Reagans only come around but so often. To continue the football analogy, as Joe Paterno might say, I don't know how good she is yet. She was subjected to a vicious, concentrated attack during a short span of time, and came out looking pretty darn good, in my opinion. I think that says a lot about a person. In fact, the despicable attack continues. That's an indication of the fear she strikes in the hard left and in the squishy aisle-spanners. I'm not saying she's Ronald Reagan, but remember how all the arbiters of our media and culture used to call him stupid.
I'm not willing to put Newt out to pasture quite yet. When I heard him explaining his support for the bailout, he sounded sheepish and apologetic. I think he was wondering even as he spoke how such things could be coming out of his mouth. My guess is that he is now greatly regretting that he caved in (especially since it hasn't worked, which he should have known). Nevertheless, though imperfect (as Bill said), I think he is irate enough with the pathetic condtion of the Republican Party that he would broach no opposition when it comes to cleaning house. He might be the "Howard Dean" of the Republicans: unable to serve in a significant public office, but enough of a die-hard to improve the state of the party and get it on a winning footing. Some guys are like Moses (initiaters), others like Joshua (finishers).
Dave, I'm with you in my thinking about Newt. And I like the biblical allusion, it's quite apt. To me, there's no doubt that newt combines the intellectual firepower and the temperament to mix it up with any and all comers that makes him so compelling - and gives him such high negatives.
Great discussion here, by the way.
Just read that Newt is out of the running and Michael Steele is the man. Any thoughts about Mr. Steele?
Steele seems to be very well thought of. He, among other Republicans, had a piece in the Journal yesterday about what the GOP needs to do now, and I was pretty impressed. I think it would be great to have a black guy as the head of the Republican Party. Of course, blacks will scorn the guy.
Post a Comment