Preaching to the choir
President Bush has cultivated an image as a rock-solid, straight-shooting, plain-spoken, no-BS kind of guy. Some people actually buy it, too.
Yet that would presume courage, conviction and the willingness to face dissenting points of view. At least it would presume the gumption occasionally to speak to the public. No, I mean the real public, not hand-picked audiences against carefully orchestrated backdrops.
But Bush again preached to the choir this week when he spoke at a plant in Kernersville. Other stops on his Soft-Touch Tour have included frequent visits to the Heritage Foundation, where Bush almost is considered royalty. And to military troops, who are compelled to be respectful (in one case in Iraq, soldiers' questions were scripted).
And his invitation-only speech two years ago at his invitation-only speech at High Point University, which had all the trappings of a pep rally. I managed to get into that one as a credentialed journalist.
Based on his shaky appearance under less controlled conditions at the 2004 Unity conference of minority journalists in Washington, I suspect the president would do better in such cases if he were more practiced at it.
He'd probably benefit from hearing more dissenting opinions in private, too.
Comments (6)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
If you're serious, you have an unbelievably naive understanding of American politics. And a short memory for the past administrations.
Posted on December 10, 2005 10:39 AM
Could be. But my perception remains that the Bush camp is especially insular.
Posted on December 12, 2005 12:16 PM
My mind goes back to the time of the Great Communicator. Prior to visiting an elementary school to field questions from kids, his advance party asked the kids what type of questions they were likely to ask the Reagans. When one of the kids said he was gonna ask the President, since he talked about God so much, why didn't he go to church? Oh, the spontaneity of the child.
Most politcal question and answer settings are performed in "preaching to the choir" settings without respect to parties. These settings are typically pep rally sessions to bolster the faithful, that's all.
By now I think we can all agree that 43 is not a great public speaker and relies heavily on a controlled speaking environment.
Clinton never spoke at the Heritage Foundation because he represents the left, just as I'm certain Bush will/has never speak at the Brookings Institution, a bastion of left wing thinking.
In a nutshell, you desire to speak in friendly setting that represents viewpoints of your own.
Posted on December 12, 2005 12:58 PM
Jon:
I would agree; it's human nature to want to speak to only those you know already agree with you. But it's not leadership.
Imagine if our local elected officials followed such a philosophy. Why should the national ones be any different?
Posted on December 12, 2005 1:21 PM
Allen,
Witness Ann Coulter and the reception she got recently at UConn. I could imagine the reception that our President would have received at this venue as well as other "open" settings.
Civility ain't out there no more, especially when it relates to attitudes toward our politicians. Our society is really polarized.
People are mean spirited and can act in a hateful manner and in my estimation that's the reason why 43 and others in the past make certain that the audience is kind and listens obediently.
But just possibly, the reason for Ann's hostile reception was because the babes in the audience were jealous of her beauty & brains. Of course, it couldn't have been for her no holds barred political views.
Posted on December 12, 2005 3:20 PM
Jon:
I'm not sure Ann Coulter is a role model in civility herself.
Her oral and written words can be shrill and biting, to put it mildly.
But she backs her views with research.
She deserved to be heard, by the babes and non-bables alike.
Posted on December 12, 2005 3:24 PM