Freedom Writing

Editor’s Pick
JUNE 14, 2010 9:26PM

Leadership? Or Showmanship?

Rate: 3 Flag

 



Barack Obama plans to address the nation tomorrow night about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

The speech is scheduled to begin at 7 p.m. (Central), after Obama returns from a two–day visit to Alabama, Mississippi and Florida, the president's fourth trip to the region since the oil rig exploded in April and triggered the events with which Obama and the government's emergency responders have been trying to deal ever since. It is said Obama will speak for about 15 minutes about the disaster.

This is a pivotal moment in the Obama presidency.

After nearly eight weeks of this, Americans have a general idea what's happening, and they don't want to hear an update. Well, that isn't entirely true, I guess. They'd like it just fine if Obama could tell them exactly how much oil is pouring into the Gulf every day. There seems to be a distinct discrepancy between BP's figures and everyone else's.

Beyond that, though, they've got a pretty good handle on what's happening. What they want to know is the course of action that will be taken.

What sacrifice, if any, will be asked of them?

Personally, I feel that was one of the great failings of the Bush administration. After the attacks of September 11, the country was in a common cause frame of mind and would have been responsive to a presidential call for a shared sacrifice — but Bush told a few Americans to prepare for war, and he told the rest of us to go shopping.

Would it have been necessary for American troops to remain in Afghanistan as long as they have if all Americans, those at home as well as those in uniform, had been urged to make a common sacrifice for a common objective?

 


"Americans need to know that Mr. Obama, whose coolness can seem like detachment, is engaged. This is not a mere question of presentation or stagecraft, although the White House could do better at both. (We cringed when he told the 'Today' show that he had spent important time figuring out 'whose ass to kick' about the spill. Everyone knew that answer on Day 2.)"

New York Times

Perhaps in the early days of his presidency, when Obama's approval rating hovered at astonishing heights — and at a point in his term when, technically, there was nothing (or, at least, very little) of which to approve or disapprove — Americans, many of whom appeared weary after eight years of George W. Bush's mangled syntax, were content to listen in admiration, as they had during the presidential campaign, to Obama's smooth oratory.

But those days are gone. The bloom is off the rose. So, to borrow a phrase from Joe Friday, just give us the facts.

There is a symbolic quality to this that is hard to measure. When a president engages in straight talk with the American people about a particularly vexing problem, he enlists their service in solving it. There is an incalculable value in that, but what it comes down to is this: people like to feel like they are part of the process.

Actually, a character like Joe Friday, from a popular TV series, provides an apt analogy for the Obama administration — in truth, for any administration. Modern Americans see their president on TV every day. For a time, they are enthralled, but there comes a point when they become disenchanted. When that happens, the negative perception begins to harden, and it requires something really dramatic to alter the downward trajectory.

You could say that John F. Kennedy reached a similar point in 1962, the second year of his presidency, when U.S. surveillance revealed that the Soviet Union was installing nuclear missiles in Cuba. When Kennedy addressed the nation, he didn't offer flowery language. He didn't try to impress the voters with his vocabulary and his extensive education. He told the American people how dire the situation was and enlisted their cooperation.

Engage us, Mr. President.

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
"Engage us, Mr. President."

Exactly. I am growing weary of his constant modifiers and verbose verbiage. Do you think he talked that way when he was a "community organizer"? I sure hope not. Now is the time for straight talk--as I have mentioned on more than one occasion--Obama needs to be more Truman and less Carter.
Oh and by the way, seems to me that there's not a whole lot of difference between "leadership and showmanship". Ronald Reagan spent 8 years convincing us that his showmanship was leadership. And, basically it was.
I doubt a speech is really a pivotal point in any presidency. Granted, Kennedy's missile speech was important, but being on the edge of nuclear war beats an oil leak, even when it's a big one. There's not much a president can do once a leak happens. His role is to pass legislation that makes leaks unlikely. Americans would do well to expect less from the president and demand more from the government in a broader sense. You need good government more than great speeches.

The one thing that might make a difference would be if Obama announced that the government would hire 500,000 unemployed people to clean up the beaches. That would be a nice signal of concern for both environment and unemployment.
I supported hi amd voted for him, but can't tell his policies apart fro W's.
Now, as far as I'm concerned, "mene mene tekel; upharsin!"
Less rhetoric any action at all. (R)
Sorry about the typos.
I am trying to avoid dispariaging comments because for the most part I do agree with you but I have to laugh at how things have changed over the past two years. When President Obama speeks the nation expects leadership, empathy (even though the conservatives declared it almost evel to express such emotions), and most of all answers to all questions, even those that contridict one another. Do course during the bush years every speech began with the spin doctors both claiming he was the kind of plain speaking guy who you would want to get a beer with and wasn't very good at public addresses so not to expect too much.

What a difference a few years make.
58 days.
58 days of dragging his feat to the point it's interference.
58 days and Jindahl still has not gotten all the people he needs.
58 days and he still refuses foreign aid.
58 days of turning away the best help the world has to offer.

And now he's going to give a speech.

4 days and Bush hated black people.
58 days, Obama hates America.
As long as he doesn't blame Bush he should be fine.

Although, I don't expect anything dramatic.
Oh, gosh, he's going to be on television again? How often does that happen!
Obama might give nice speeches, but they don't really translate into action. He's been pretty much following the example that Bill Clinton set for Democrats – they're the Republican Lite party – setting policy around winning support of corporate interests and winning over conservatives instead of helping the little guy.
Asking Obama to be "more of a showman" is total BS. You can't tap dance on an oil slick without getting wet and gooey. I think the president knows that he needs to provide definite answers as to what the government's programs will be in response to BP and the disaster, and I think he'll deliver.

If Mr. Obama does do anything than being upfront and telling the truth on this one, then he is seriously in the wrong job.

However, the facts are that this environmental catastrophe is not Obama's fault. Remember that GW Bush and Dick Cheney decided that a lot of government regulations were not necessary for offshore drilling, as this might interfere with the smooth workings of the free market. And I have to laugh at Sarah Palin's incoherent policy mix of "Drill, baby drill," "The President is in the pocket of the oil companies," and "We've got to nationalize BP."
old new lefty --

Who has been saying this is Obama's fault? I haven't heard anyone blaming him for this.

You volunteer that he is innocent when no one (to my knowledge) has suggested that he is guilty of anything.

At a time when our efforts should be focused solely on resolving this matter, Obama worries about "whose ass to kick" and you fret that "the facts are that this environmental catastrophe is not Obama's fault."

But, as president, he is responsible for providing leadership. If he fails to do so, he should be impeached. Simple as that.

Blame can be assigned after they plug the damn hole.

By the way, please explain why you say, "Asking Obama to be 'more of a showman' is total BS." If anything, my post says he should be LESS of a showman when he speaks tonight.
With all due respect, do you know how many times someone has written "this is a pivotal moment in the Obama" something or other? That's life. One pivotal moment after another. And Kennedy? Please don't make me list the prat falls of that presidency that came before and after the missile crisis. Bay of Pigs ring a bell? Ngo Dinh Diem? Failure to act on civil rights?
All politicians are actors, but for Obama to display some anger and "emotion" and "showmanship" in this situation would be both dishonest both to himself and the American public. But I have to find one person who can define what his "leadership" should be in this situation. It appears to me as if President Obama is acting rationally and responsibly in this matter, doing whatever is possible for the US government to do.

What does leadership in this area mean? Does it mean taking the place of BP's operations 100%? So does that mean we should nationalize the American compenent of BP? I'm sorry. I don't understand.

Someone, please explain to me what kind of leadership President Obama should be showing in this situation.
Well, it would help to focus on the most urgent problem, and worry about the side issues later. Capping the spill and figuring out how to get started on the cleanup is the order of the day. Yet Obama spent roughly half of tonight's speech talking about developing other energy sources in the future. Yes, that is important. Yes, it is something this country should have been doing for years, if not decades. But now is not the time to be debating it.

That's a part of presidential leadership that he has yet to learn -- how to prioritize.
Showmanship. And fairly poor at that.