Two (or three) kinds of rhetorical strategies
It might not be stretching the truth to suggest that the Democrats won the White House for this reason: the current Republican president had a communication strategy that was the perfect one for 1999 and 2000, but decidedly faulty for most of the next eight years. This made a lot of people really mad. When Bush campaigned and was first elected, his communication strategy was terrific: disciplined, focused, unswerving, on-message, reliable, solid, constant, determined, and maybe even masculine. For the next two terms, two towers, and two wars, however, that same strategy made him look stubborn, difficult, evasive, obfuscating, condescending, and incompetent. Obama had a different rhetorical approach, and thus he looked and sounded thoughtful, studious, emotional, intellectual, optimistic, and other nice and happy things. Here’s a brief analysis of what his communication style should be now, specifically regarding TV:
Obama’s predecessors took different approaches. Bill Clinton and his team wanted the president’s positions conveyed in almost every news story. They turned the White House into a 24-hour newsroom and believed that a president’s influence increases when he looks thoroughly involved. An administration must try to make news to keep the power of the bully pulpit alive. If it doesn’t, it cedes ground to political opponents, members of Congress, and, most troubling of all, pundits.
George Bush took the opposite approach. He embraced a diminished public posture. He tried to stick to the message of the day, repeating familiar arguments and viewing sideline debates or events in the news as distractions. The administration consciously did not try to “play” in every story.
Clinton’s approach could seem scattershot, and Bush’s could seem out of touch. “The Clintons were like day traders,” says former Bush counselor Dan Bartlett. “We were more like long-term investors. Neither worked perfectly. In our case it showed discipline, but we were sometimes too rigid and missed opportunities to get the president’s message across because it wasn’t blocked out on the calendar.”
Which route will Obama choose?
Again, I would argue that this is one of the major reasons and catalysts for the blob of general Bush hatred in the world.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top8 Comments to “Two (or three) kinds of rhetorical strategies”
“They turned the White House into a 24-hour newsroom and believed that a president’s influence increases when he looks thoroughly involved.”
Oh heck yes. Who can forget that Clinton was in constant “campaign” mode at all times?
Which route will Obama choose?
Well that remains to be seen, but I’d guess that what we’ve seen is what we’ll get. His cabinet picks have been a little surprising though. Perhaps he’ll be a little more bi-partisan than I thought. Of course he’s pretty constrained by circumstances now, and there’s no way he can deliver as promised.
Report comment to moderator
Are you in a position to decide President Bush’s appearance of masculinity? Such a strange comment, sliding it in at the end. Very interesting, as though to question the Presidents masculinity. Very cheap, unfounded remark, does it make you feel better? What was it supposed to accommplish?
Report comment to moderator
Bush’s rhetorical strategy for seven years has been the scold, and the more he talked, the worse his popularity.
McCain’s strategy was sensation — strategic wagers, fearless gestures, maverick surprises — none of which amounted to persuasion for the persuadable. He just looked inappropriately peppy.
Republican strategies have made Obama’s path simple: Do things that make voters like government. So, he has a governing agenda rather than a PR problem. At the end of the show, everyone will taste his pudding. Republicans are down to their most basic tunes: Obama better not do too much, because government shouldn’t do things, and Sarah got mistreated and hurt bad, but she’s a fighting cracker who will stick it in the eye of the elite.
Report comment to moderator
I know you want to believe that the real problem is simply that blob of “Bush hatred,” bit really he did do a lot to help himself down that road. Rhetorically, he didn’t adjust — shoot! didn’t even acknowledge the problems. The mishandling of Iraq 03-06 (post invasion), Katrina, the bobbling of the US reputation in the world (aka “torture”), these have been some of the actions that have framed his identity. (I might add that much of this can be traced to a certain naval observatory.) As the problems grew, the tough guy newspeak rhetoric became his prison.
Report comment to moderator
Where’s the beef?
Report comment to moderator
“At the end of the show, everyone will taste his pudding.”
Yep. And I bet it’ll be “more of the same” pudding…
Report comment to moderator
McCain might have won against a dull white guy like say Al Gore. But against a media-annointed superstar? Not even a bona fide war hero with a record of caving-in to Demo agenda stood a chance against Barack. Mac lost cause he was inept. He was the Polish horse cavalry against the Barack armored blitz.
Report comment to moderator
Speaking of uhh, rhetorical styles uhh, it will be interesting uhh to see if anything ill is said uhh, about the golden tongued uhh, Barack’s uhh, style by the uhh, media or uhh, talking heads.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!