.
The above editorial cartoon by Mike Mariand appeared in the Concord (NH) Monitor on the 8th of February 2002.
September 14, 2001
Words can heal nation or wound president
Americans look to White House for reassurance.
Whether Bush rises to the task may define him.
By Susan Page, USA TODAY, Friday, September 14, 2001,Page 4A
WASHINGTON -- They're only words. But at a time of national trauma, they matter.
A president's ability to use what Teddy Roosevelt dubbed the ''bully pulpit'' can express the nation's outrage, reassure an anxious citizenry, articulate the challenges ahead and unite the public on a plan for the future even when things seem so terribly wrong at the present.
But masterful public speaking has never been President Bush's strength. Now, critics -- and even some of his own advisers -- worry that so far, he has fallen short in speaking to and for the American people in the aftermath of the bloodiest attack on U.S. soil in history. They say whether he can do so soon will be an important demonstration of his leadership and test of his presidency.
"Bush has really been very remiss in the area of coming across as a commanding figure," says political scientist Fred Greenstein of Princeton University, author of The Presidential Difference: Leadership Style from FDR to Clinton. "This is a context that invites Bush to take the challenge of communicating to the nation in a persuasive fashion."
On the day of the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, Bush addressed a television audience estimated at 80 million from the Oval Office. Instant polls showed three in four approved of his handling of the crisis. But some analysts saw his manner as strained and his words as ordinary.
"These speeches were adequate," says Kathleen Hall Jamieson, dean of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. "The problem was, the moment demanded more than adequacy."
The instant critiques in the European press were tough. "Many still believe he is not up to the job," Rupert Cornwell wrote in The Independent in London. "His thin-lipped, somewhat superficial manner of delivery does not help."
But Bush will get more chances. On Thursday, talking with reporters in the Oval Office, he fought back tears as he vowed America would "lead the world to victory" over terrorism. Today, he plans to go to New York, where he is expected to make informal remarks after meeting with Gov. George Pataki and Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
He is expected to deliver a formal address to the nation soon, perhaps when the United States is ready to retaliate. Some aides suggest he also might ask to address a joint session of Congress.
During the early months of his presidency, Bush has struggled to find the arena that would enable him to convey a command of the office to the public. He has avoided the traditional ways presidents do that: through major speeches and prime-time news conferences.
One Republican close to the White House calls Bush's communications performance the weakest link in his presidency and worries that Americans will become convinced that he simply lacks the ability to connect with them at major moments.
The standard Jamieson sets for presidents during momentous days like these is admittedly a challenging one. "Can you be Lincoln at Gettysburg?" she asks. "Can you be Reagan at Normandy?"
But the challenge is also an opportunity for Bush, who took office after a bitterly disputed election. Michael Waldman, chief speechwriter for President Clinton, likens it to the moment his boss faced after the Oklahoma City bombing in April 1995. Clinton's words of comfort at a memorial service helped him to be perceived not only as a partisan figure but also as the president of all Americans.
As the nation now reels from another act of terrorism, many partisan divisions have been set aside again. "This is an opportunity for Bush to truly become the unifying president that circumstances have not allowed him to be until now," Waldman says.
Failure to communicate effectively with the nation can be devastating. After 10 days of reflection at Camp David, President Carter returned to the White House in July 1979 to deliver an Oval Office address intended to turn his faltering presidency around.
Instead, his so-called "malaise" speech -- he never actually uttered that word -- underscored the sense that he wasn't up to the job. He would lose re-election the following year to a better communicator, Ronald Reagan.
"It's certainly true that this was a president whose strong point was not the set-piece speech," says Jody Powell, one of Carter's most trusted aides, although he defends the speech Carter gave as better than its historic reputation. "In a sense, that could be a problem for this president, too."
Presidents can choose different ways to speak to the public. Reagan was commanding as he delivered major addresses but routinely flubbed facts if he spoke off-the-cuff. Clinton could be flat when speaking directly to a TV camera in the Oval Office but was skilled in connecting with an audience at State of the Union addresses or town-hall-style meetings.
The younger Bush shouldn't feel compelled to attempt the same I-feel-your-pain manner that worked for Clinton, says Marlin Fitzwater, press secretary for Reagan and the elder Bush. He says opponents are exaggerating to embarrass him or gain political advantage.
"Sooner or later, every president will establish the style and process by which they can best communicate," Fitzwater says. "The problem is, I just don't think George W. is quite there yet."
If you have any comments or information that you might like added to this page, please e-mail the typed information to:
 drobac@mailcity.com |
Information may be edited before posting.