: Shoot from hip, hit foot…
I have posted my analysis of the recent foreign policy speech by Howard Dean–the one with the now famous line: “But the capture of Saddam has not made America safer.” About this line I write:
According to an article in the
Boston Globe, Dean added this line after his policy analysts had reviewed
the speech. This is exactly the kind of irresponsible behavior I have criticized
Dean for in the past…The problem with the line isn’t its accuracy. I
think an excellent case can be made that it conforms to the realities of the
situation as reasonable observers understand them. The problem with the
line–why it is a rhetorical blunder–is that it plays so well into hands of
sound-bite critics. Lift the line out, quote it out of context, build a fallacious
argument. Such a move as Dean’s merely hands the opposition a whip and invites a
beating. His penchant for such rhetoric may be endearing to a certain segment of
the voting public. But this penchant is also an indication that Dean
misunderstands something fundamental about the presidency: the power of the
office is rhetorical. When the president speaks, policy happens. If the
president speaks ill-advisedly, then ill-advised policy happens…
UPDATE (2:07 p.m.): A new Zogby national poll puts Dean in a comfortable lead over his Democratic rivals. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll puts Bush ahead of Dean.
“Ill-advisedly” must be in the ears of the listener. The President can speak “ill-advisedly” regularly and nobody reacts. Such was the case the other night with Diane Sawyer: WMD’s or the remote possiblity of them. “What’s the difference?” A more rhetorically challenged person than HIM I don’t know.
thelrd in TEXAS
Excellent anaylsis but…
Was it a lemon?
‘Anti-war candidate Howard Dean said Monday ‘the capture of Saddam has not made America safer,’ directly contradicting President Bush and drawing the wrath of two Democratic presidential rivals.’
Dallas News
Or lemonade?
Senator John Glenn interviewed by Wold Blitzer on CNN:
BLITZER: Senator Glenn, while I have you, I remember interviewing you many times where you were in the U.S. Senate, a member of the Armed Services Committee, a member of the Intelligence Committee. In terms of the war on terrorism, is the American public safer today now that Saddam Hussein has been captured?
GLENN: The American public? Well, I’d be hard pressed to say that, that the American public. I didn’t see Saddam Hussein as being quite the danger that some other people did.
His neighbors were not really afraid of what he was doing over there. We haven’t found any weapons of mass destruction yet. I’m glad we have him. He was a bad man, there’s no doubt about that.
But as far as, do I feel safer because he’s been captured? Well, I’m glad he was captured. But do I feel safer? No, I guess I don’t feel that much safer.’
Given the attention it (safer) received, I’m not sure if it was a negative or a positive in the long run. You might find the following of interest as well:
‘Part of Enright’s job is coaching the candidate, and she isn’t shy about that. She once told Dean that he has a bad habit of repeating reporters’ questions before answering them, thus incorporating their charges and allowing them to frame the issue. “You know why you do that? Because you’re a doctor,” she told him.
Dean was struck by the observation. “You learn that in medical school,” he said. Enright advised him to curb his tongue.’
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9692-2003Dec17.html
Larry– If a president speaks ill-advisedly and no one reacts, I’d call that good fortune
Richard– Don’t read too much into my analysis. Any rhetorical maneuver is open to reinterpretation as events unfold. G. H. W. Bush’s “read my lips” promise is a good example. It “worked” in the short term but became a political disaster in the long term.
Any evaluation of the immediate effects of a rhetorical maneuver must be taken as a comment on the moment only. And, in my opinion, this was an ill-advised (or, non-advised) comment at this time.
Hi, I’m wondering - what of the possibility that Dean occasionally uses poor (or inflammatory) rhetoric for politically strategic purposes? I’ve seen a few occasions in a row where Dean says something that others seize on, he gets a TON of attention as people dump on him, and then somehow his poll numbers magically go up. Perhaps Dean completely intended to make the point, and perhaps he intended it to be provocative.
Curt, you may be right. And if this is calculated, then I think the “mistakes” are all the worse for it.
My thinking here is conventional. Seeing as how Dean has successfully bucked a lot of conventions so far, I may be wrong in my assumptions about how this will play out. But here are my concerns:
Of all the voters who show up on November 2004, about a third will be self-identified Democrats, another third self-identified Republicans, and the last third self-identified independents. That third of independents elects the president. Dean’s rhetoric seems to play well among Democrats in the primary. But how will it play to independents? Hmmmmm…that’s what we don’t know. And conventional wisdom says you win the election in the political middle.
I suggested last week that I think Gore’s endorsement is about buying Dean time to make the rhetorical switch for the general election. If I’m right about that, then Dean’s “slips” may turn out to be brilliant campaigning.