" President Obama and the Proper Economy of Persuasion" (Is he too wordy?)

[KoKo]

President Obama and the Proper Economy of Persuasion
David Bromwich

Professor of Literature at Yale
Posted: September 13, 2010 09:47 AM

President Obama gave many speeches in the 2008 campaign which were -- with a single large exception -- versions of one speech. In office, he has addressed Americans chiefly in two formats: the grand policy exordium, as in the Cairo speech on the Middle East in June 2009 or the health care speech to Congress in September 2009; and the town-hall Q-and-A, where he serves as an agreeable host to comfort the anxieties of citizens. He has yet to develop a consistent clarity in the explanation of his policies: an ability that is tested in open debate and unrehearsed exchanges more than in the formats of the prepared speech and the polite interview.

As president, Obama was helped to forge a style but also hindered by the examples of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. From Reagan, he gets a tendency to lean on platitudes and homely certainties, putting broad assertions of good will and sentimental common sense in the place of logical and historical demonstration. Yet Obama lacks the simplicity of mind required to carry conviction through repetitions of a simple theme. From Clinton, he has adapted for less formal occasions a relaxed and rambling manner. "This-is-what-we're doin', and here's where we need your help." Yet he speaks deliberately. His display of a painstaking pause at every phrase yields a first impression of great precision, which disappoints on a closer look. His choice of words is long-winded and he is apt to throw in personal reflections almost anywhere. All these habits lead away from the proper economy of persuasion.

The extracts from his September 10 press conference printed below under the headings Question and President Obama are drawn verbatim from the transcript. In the final extract, answering a question about Muslims in America, he delivers a plain truth from plain ground without a trace of self-regard, pampered vagueness, or overemphasis. This is his standard, set by himself. The revised versions of the other extracts serve to explain details, acknowledge inconvenient facts, and name things directly, in preference to the forms of circumlocution and euphemism to which this president is attached beyond any advantage they can ever confer.


QUESTION 1: A centerpiece was a consumer financial protection bureau; and yet, you haven't named a head. Is Elizabeth Warren still a leading candidate?



PRESIDENT OBAMA: Now, the idea for this agency was Elizabeth Warren's. She's a dear friend of mine; she's somebody I've known since I was in law school. And, you know, I have been in conversations with her. She is a tremendous advocate for this idea. It's only been a couple of months, and this is a big task standing up this entire agency. So I'll have an announcement soon about how we're going to move forward. And, you know, I--I think what's fair to say is--is that I have had conversations with Elizabeth over the course of these--over these last couple of months, but I'm not going to make an official announcement until--until it's ready.

ANALYSIS: Too much information.

SHORT VERSION: I've talked extensively with Elizabeth Warren, whose competence I appreciate and whose dedication I admire. We'll make the nomination when we're ready.

--------------

QUESTION 2: How have you changed Washington?


PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I'll tell you how we've changed Washington. Prior to us getting here, as I indicated before, you had a set of policies that were skewed towards special interests, skewed towards the most powerful, and ordinary families out there were being left behind.

And since we've gotten here, whether it's making sure that folks who can't get health insurance because of a pre-existing condition can now get health insurance or children who didn't have coverage now have coverage, whether it's making sure that credit card companies have to actually post in understandable ways what your credit card rates are and they can't jack up existing balances in arbitrary ways, whether it's making sure that we've got clean water and clean air for future generations, whether it's making sure that tax cuts go to families that need it as opposed to folks who don't, on a whole range of issues, over the last 18 months, we've put in place policies that are going to help grow a middle class and lay the foundation for long-term economic growth.

Now if -- if you're asking why haven't I been able to create a greater spirit of cooperation in Washington, yeah, I think that's fair. I'm as frustrated as anybody by it. I think part of it has to do with the fact that when we came into office, we came in under very tough economic circumstances, and I think that some of the Republican leaders made a decision -- you know, we're going to sit on the sidelines and let the Democrats try to solve it -- and so we got a lot of resistance very early.

I think what's also true is -- is that when you take on tough issues like health care or financial regulatory reform, where special interests are deeply entrenched, there's a lot of money at stake for them. And where the issues are so complicated that it drags on for a long time, you end up having a lot of big fights here in town, and it's messy, and it's frustrating.

ANALYSIS: The question invites a sermon or a joke. The response is a short sermon, taking a small amount of the relevant blame. Better to say who obstructed the change, and why.

SHORT VERSION: Historically the Democratic Party has worked to spread the benefits of our society. The Republicans have wanted to confine the benefits to a smaller number. They favor a few, and argue that this helps everyone in the long run. Their theories have had a fair trial since 1980, and they've been proved false--catastrophic, some would say. But even in view of that history, I've been amazed at the strategy of the Republican leadership these last two years. All presidents expect opposition. What took me by surprise was the ferocity of the party discipline on the other side, getting all its members into lockstep, blotting out the least glimmer of independence, saying no to everything, sight unseen. So, yes, it has been a struggle, and the struggle goes on.

----------------------------

QUESTION 3: If these talks fail at an early stage, will this administration disengage?


PRESIDENT OBAMA: There are enormous hurdles between now and --and our end point. And there are going to be a whole bunch of folks in the region who want to undermine these negotiations. We saw it when Hamas carried out these horrific attacks against civilians and explicitly said, "We're going to try to do this to undermine peace talks." There are going to be rejectionists who suggest that it can't happen, and there are also going to be cynics who just believe that the mistrust between the sides is too deep.

We understood all that. We understood that it was a risk for us to promote these discussions. But it is a risk worth taking, because I firmly believe that, you know, it is in America's national-security interests, as well as Israel's national-security interests as well as in the interests of the Palestinian people, to arrive at a peace deal.

Part of the reason that I think Prime Minister Netanyahu was comfortable coming here was that he's seen during the course of 18 months that my administration is unequivocal in our defense of Israel's security.

And we've engaged in some unprecedented cooperation with Israel to make sure that they can deal with any external threats. But I think he also came here understanding that, to maintain Israel as a Jewish state that is also a democratic state, this issue has to be dealt with.

I think President Abbas came here despite grave misgivings and pressure from the other side because he understood the window for creating a Palestinian state is closing. And there are a whole bunch of parties in the region who purport to be friends of the Palestinians, and yet do everything they can to avoid the path that would actually lead to a Palestinian state -- would actually lead to their goal.

And so the two parties need each other. That doesn't mean it's going to work; ultimately, it's going to be up to them. We can facilitate, we can encourage, we can tell them that we will stand behind them in their efforts and are wiling to contribute as part of the broader international community in making this work. But ultimately, the parties have to make these decisions for themselves. And I remain hopeful, but -- but this is going to be tough. And I -- I don't want anybody out there thinking that it's going to be easy.

The main point I want to make is, it's a risk worth taking because the alternative is a status quo that is unsustainable. And so if these talks break down, we're going to keep on trying. Over the long term, it has the opportunity, by the way, also, to change the strategic landscape in the Middle East in a way that would be very helpful. It would help us deal with an Iran that has not been willing to give up its nuclear program.

It would help us deal with terrorist organizations in the region.

So -- so this something in our interests. You know, we're not just doing this to feel good; we're doing it because it'll help secure America as well.

ANALYSIS: Delete foggy generalities: "a whole bunch of folks in the region," "a whole bunch of parties in the region." Specify. Who and what? And economize. No bureaucratic lyricism ("the strategic landscape in the Middle East"), no adverbial filler ("in a way that would be very helpful"). Don't answer straw-man accusations ("we're not just doing this to feel good"). Don't answer for everyone's feelings. Speak about actions not intentions.

SHORT VERSION: Nobody expected us to give another try to these negotiations, but they have enormous importance for the security of the region, and for American security as well. President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu come to the table with a complex history; that's well known. But Israelis and Palestinians both have an interest in peace. Israel today and the Palestinian Authority have both said they're looking to establish two states living side by side at peace. Al-Qaeda would be greatly weakened by such an agreement, and by the creation of a Palestinian state. We know for a fact that it would deny Al-Qaeda one of their greatest tools for the recruitment of terrorists: namely (as they see it) the occupation of the West Bank and the oppression of Palestinians. It will be great advance if we can cut off the poison of actual conditions that along with religious fanaticism are a great feeder of terrorism.

More at Link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/president-obama-and-the-p_1_b_714417.html

[zipplewrath]

1. May not be the goal

I agree generally, that politicians tend to talk too much. I'm also aware that in some contexts that is considered the "right" thing to do strategically. If you answer too quickly, it gives them time to ask another question.

I do think there is a solid larger point to be made here. All politicians could learn to, well, ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION. Like the question about "will the administration disengage". A very simple and direct way to respond is to say "No, we will not disengage". Then you can go on and discuss all your qualifiers and create your wiggle room for the future. But the vast majority of the population will only remember that brief answer. But when you throw in all the qualifiers first, and add all the side bars, many people get to the end and they have no idea what you just said.

"No, we are not raising taxes. I promised that we wouldn't raise taxes on those making less than $250K and I'm sticking to that promise. Some temporary Bush era tax cuts are expiring as intended and those for the highest brackets aren't going to be renewed at the current levels. We have long range plans to address the deficits......"

The first sentence answers the question. People hear you say it. You can then modify it afterwards, and even cover your ass for the potential misinterpretations, or just plain kill time talking about taxes or the economy. BUT ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION FIRST.

[KoKo]

2. Agree...think Obama can be too professorial with the media and in Town Halls.

The unfortunate success of the Repugs is the short answers they give (which of course are written by their right wing Think Tanks or Lobbyists) as "Talking Points."

Our Democrats, including Obama have yet to learn to give a simple straightforward answer with a MESSAGE that reinforces Democratic Beliefs. After all this time...why can't we learn to simplify our message?

[zipplewrath]

3. Grayson

It is interesting to listen to Grayson some times. He is very good at this. A large part of it comes from the fact that he isn't afraid to be outrageous. So when some interviewer tries to "trap" him with a question, he kinda chuckles and not only tells them the answer he supposedly would try to avoid, but he does so in a very direct manner.

Learn what the "trap" questions are, and be prepared to answer them very directly. You'll put 'em right back on their heals.

[KoKo]

4. I don't trust him...but GREAT BALLS OF FIRE...He knows HOW TO FRAME for DEMS!

I give him great credit for that....and More Power to Him!