: A good story…Stagecraft as statecraft…
I maintain, along with many scholars before me, that the essence of presidential power is rhetorical, i.e. the power resides mostly in a president’s ability to persuade. The tools of rhetoric are many as an article in The New York Times demonstrates; Elisabeth Bumiller writes about the new heights the Bush administration is taking the art of presidential stagecraft.
First, let me say that I find nothing wrong with any of this. A president should use all the powers at his disposal to lead. But we Americas should also use all the powers at our disposal to deconstruct and interpret presidential messages. That said, I find this statement troubling:
“We pay particular attention to not only what the president says but what the American people see,” Mr. [Dan] Bartlett [White House communications director] said. “Americans are leading busy lives, and sometimes they don’t have the opportunity to read a story or listen to an entire broadcast. But if they can have an instant understanding of what the president is talking about by seeing 60 seconds of television, you accomplish your goals as communicators. So we take it seriously.”
Instant understanding? Something happens in an instant, all right. But it’s not what I’d call understanding. Or, at least, it’s not the kind or depth of understanding that I contend is necessary for a free and democratic people to properly participate in government.
Andrew,
I agree with your assessment, there is certainly no DEPTH of understanding. I do believe the quotes in the post acknowledge the manipulation of visual/electronic media. Of course, such manipulation means that the TRUTH can be easily disguised. Probably nothing NEW, more an indication of said manipulation couched as a positive for the audience. Also, I daresay, an acknowledgement of Bush’s lack of articulation: He does come across better in “concrete images” (the USS Lincoln landing, the megaphone speech at the WTC) — and thus such images do communicate to a certain extent his philosophy and persona.
But as you say, what is lacking is DEPTH (in the communication or the man — your call ;^)
One way to define depth in this context would be: political utility, i.e. what use can we make of the information. In terms of what Bush wants, these images have high utility. But what can we citizens do with them? I’m not sure we can say much about the man with such images because the presidents have always been, to various degrees, characters is a show played by men.
I think this is a tempest in a teapot. Is Bush in a flight suit somehow more reprehensible than Calvin Coolidge in a war bonnet? Certainly the most damning TV image of a politican was Nixon sweating during the debates. And Kennedy’s operatives completely rigged that, as well.
THink of Bill and Hil’s love fest on 6o Minutes–or Hilary in a pink sweater and headband explaining her trading windfalls and both of those interviews were on NEWS programs–not photo-ops.
This is a problem for the older generation, like Bumiller. Anyone who’s grown up on MTV doesn’t pay it a second’s notice.