Upgrade Presidential Communication to Fight the Conflictinator

[gulliver]

While we have the Presidency, I think Democrats have an unprecedented opportunity. We can overhaul and upgrade the way the President communicates with the Congress, the media, and the American people. I think there is a good chance we will lose the presidency if we don't. If we do, there is a chance we could eliminate a lot of the polarization, rampant hyperbole, and outright lying that is giving us so much trouble.

It's a very simple idea, and the equivalent is done in business all the time. The President should meet with Congress and the media in frequent, regularly scheduled, televised give-and-take sessions. That's all.

I understand if people think this might just be too much of a good thing. Press conferences with the President seem to get us nothing. Gibbs talks to the press daily, and not much good comes of it. Even the State of the Union address is just political theater. No one watches. No one listens. Everyone just spins, twists, and defuses everything said or written. Why should we do more of something that seems to get us nowhere?

I also understand if people think that a big change isn't possible. It's crackpot. It's pie-in-the-sky. The government just doesn't work that way. It's just nutty and hopeless to try.

My answer is that press events and speeches get us nowhere because they are not two-way, and they are not being done frequently enough or regularly enough. They are events, not ingrained processes. They don't nurture and guide the debate, they only perturb it. It's like jogging. Do it every other day, you shape up. Do it twice a year, you have a heart attack.

Changing the way government communicates is really not an option as far as I can see. The current system, where we lob sporadic "messages, signals, sound bites, and indications" into the ether is just creating way too much tension, disorientation, incoherence, anger, hatred, etc. It's like an e-mail flame war on mass media steroids.

The benefits of regular two-way meetings with the President accrue primarily to the truth-oriented side of the debate. I think that gives Dems a short term advantage at least. But in the long run, both sides would need to conform the rhetoric they use to higher standards of truth and civility. Here are a few examples, using the current political makeup:

1. Suppose Mitch McConnell levels a charge or makes an uncivil comment about Obama to the media. At the next regularly scheduled, televised meeting with Congressional leaders, Obama could say, "Senator McConnell, I'd like to ask you to address the remarks you made earlier this week. Let's talk about them." McConnell would be on the spot and would need to make a good case for his comments. Moreover, knowing he would be put on the spot in short order for dishonest, uncivil, or hyperbolic comments, McConnell would be less likely to make the comments in the first place.
   
2. Suppose Obama wants to make an announcement of a new jobs strategy. Instead of just announcing it at an ad hoc press conference, he could bring it up as "new business" at the regularly scheduled meeting. Then he can ask for any questions about the strategy and tell Congress, "Let's all go back, think about it, and be ready to talk about it at the next session." That makes it less likely that the opposition will simply spray out a barrage of negative hyperbole. They would have to answer for it at the next session if they did.
   
3. We might get better Presidents. Someone like Obama would flourish in regularly scheduled, detailed discussions with Congress and the media. It's hard to imagine mere demagogues like Sarah Palin or "name recognition legacies" like George W. Bush being able to cut it.
   
4. Media outlets like Fox News and also news organizations would be expected to have a representative at the media conferences, not just a reporter. The President would be able to ask the representative questions, not just answer them. That would allow Obama to challenge the things that the media reports and, through the media, communicate with the American people again.

I could go on, but I'm interested in what other people think about this. To me, when the times change, we need to change with them. The pace of media has picked up so much that it no longer makes sense for the President and other executives to address the media, the Congress, and the people via one-way communication and proxies. That's what we are doing now, and it looks to me like it is not working at all.

I think the opportunity for change is only going to be around while Dems have the Presidency. Unfortunately, Republicans are heavily invested in the current political media incoherence. It makes it much easier to simply fake out, rile up, overload, and separate the electorate from it's sanity. Dems have to be the ones to drive a change in the communications process if it's going to happen.

[gulliver]

1. Kick for the night crowd. n/t