Apparently, as part of their year-end review, the administration’s communications team concluded that they had not been aggressive enough in fighting the daily battles and had not used the president effectively. I think a lot of people, especially in the context of the health care debate, will respond to this news with a ‘no der.’ People were begging the president to provide more defined leadership on health care from August until the Senate finally passed their version of the bill on Christmas Eve. I heard a lot of people saying that the president didn’t care what was in the bill because he wouldn’t insist on the public option. But, my view was always that their main focus was on passing something in the face of united opposition, and that the administration was consistently taking the long-view on what it would take to get 60 votes when the time came. It wasn’t that he didn’t care about the public option, it’s that he wasn’t going to get bogged down on that issue. He got the public option in the House bill, and he got the Senate to pass a bill with all 60 Democratic senators and no Republicans. That was an amazing feat. And it would have produced a middling health care bill if not for the Massachusetts special election. In any case, it appears the White House recognizes that you have to manage the short-term message even if you are pursuing a long-term strategy.
Press secretary Robert Gibbs said the White House team struggled in 2009 to adapt to a political environment that demanded daily communication battles. “We have to adjust in many ways to the fact that in the campaign we always took the long view,” he said. “This is an environment that calls for sharper communication.”
And that communication needs to be sharper with progressives, too. I don’t disagree with Rahm Emanuel’s assessment that during the health care debate a lot of progressives were acting like “effing retards,” but a big part of the reason for that was a lack of mutual trust. Let’s put it in context:
Stephen J. Farnsworth, an assistant professor of communication at George Mason University and author of “Spinner in Chief: How Presidents Sell Their Policies and Themselves,” said: “A diffident Obama PR strategy in the first year gave the Republicans an opening they have exploited.” Farnsworth added of White House officials, “They simply have to play offense to try to win back the public support that they enjoyed during the campaign.”
It’s hard to get people to trust you when you’re using a ‘diffident PR strategy.’ So, yes, the White House needs to be more aggressive with Republicans on the short-term stuff, but they need to share more with their allies about their long-term strategy and the points of resistance they are fighting. I know it’s difficult to negotiate with Ben Nelson and the progressive base at the same time. Remember that Joe Lieberman spiked the expansion of Medicare simply because progressives thought it was a good idea. More communication would create its own problems. But, if you are a communications team, you should know that it’s not good to have progressive online opinion leaders bashing the administration day after day. Fighting back against Republicans aggressively pleases the base. Explaining the complexities and strategic challenges better to the base will result in more sympathetic coverage when things don’t go as planned or tough compromises need to be made.
During the first year, the administration was too passive in fighting the daily fight and their lack of communication with the progressive blogosphere resulted in a breakdown in trust which then turned a natural ally that fights the daily fight into an opponent that fought daily against them.
