Prime Group

Obama’s actions up to this point speak even louder than his words

Barack Obama might become the most eloquent US president in at least a generation. He knows that power words help to educate, inspire, and motivate. But if actions truly speak louder than words, it is important also to evaluate Obama as a non-verbal communicator. What do his actions during the campaign and the transition tell us about his political message? Consider two examples.

During the campaign, he was pressured to repudiate his longtime Chicago pastor, Jeremiah Wright, because of inflammatory sermons Wright had delivered over the years. Obama’s first instinct was to take the high road – separate himself from the offending remarks, but use the incident as a “teachable moment” to talk candidly about race relations in America. He famously declared, “I can no more disown [Wright] than I can my white grandmother.” A month later, after Wright made further offensive comments, Obama not only disowned him, but also threw him under the proverbial bus.

Fast forward to the transition. In one of his first political acts as president-elect, Obama told Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) that he didn’t want apostate Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) politically punished for endorsing John McCain and campaigning harshly against Obama. He then announced the selection of Rep. Rahm Emanuel, one of the toughest Democratic partisans in the House, as his chief of staff.

What do these actions tell us? That Obama is, in words John F. Kennedy used to describe himself, “an idealist without illusions.” That he wants to appeal to “the better angels of our nature,” but knows “the devil is in the details.” That he has the idealism of a community organizer and the political instincts of a Chicago politician.

Our most successful presidents have been “idealists without illusions.” George Washington actually went to Congress to seek their “advice and consent” on several Indian treaties, but, when the session turned into procedural bickering, left “with a discontented air… of sullen dignity” never to return (nor did any of his successors). Take the high road if you can, but do what you must.

Abraham Lincoln may have harbored “malice toward none,” but he fired a half-dozen generals before finding two (Grant and Sherman) tough enough to match his own fierce prosecution of the war. And Franklin Roosevelt supposedly summed up his “idealism without illusions” when he condemned President Somoza of Nicaragua as a “son of a bitch” for his repression of his countrymen before acknowledging that the US would continue to support Somoza because “he’s our son of a bitch.”

Obama chooses his actions at least as carefully and skillfully as he chooses his words. And, so far, what he has communicated by those actions is that he wants his administration to embody the values and ideals that have made America great, but in pursuit of those lofty goals he will do whatever it takes to succeed in the rough and tumble world of politics.

Click here to view a PDF version of this article.

Our leaders’ poor communication made a bad situation even worse

For those of us who practice crisis communications or advise others on the subject, the recent financial institution meltdown provided a particularly apt case study. It proved once again that, in a crisis, strategy, actions, and words all matter.

Strategy matters.
“Get it all out fast” is advice crisis advisers routinely offer business executives. Allowing a crisis to unfold in slow motion is always ineffective and damaging. Yet, though they had every reason to know better, the administration dribbled out the bad news and the painful decisions about Bear Stearns, then Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, then Lehman Brothers, then AIG, then everybody else.
The only defense imaginable is that they didn’t realize how widespread and serious the problem would become, which is much scarier than their bungled communication.

Actions matter.
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) correctly understood the financial crisis to be a “game changer” for his campaign. What he didn’t grasp is that, in a crisis, the public seeks steadiness in its leaders.
By “suspending” his campaign and threatening to boycott the first presidential debate so that he could deal with the crisis – and then doing little to prevent his own party’s attempt to scuttle the rescue plan – he appeared erratic, political, opportunistic, and ineffective.
That this all occurred fast on the heels of his selection of Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) as his vice presidential nominee did not help instill confidence in McCain.

Words matter.
US Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, with the help of Congressional Democrats and Republicans, allowed the “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008” to be reduced to the shorthand “$700 Billion Bailout.” This was a grossly misleading and damaging way to characterize the plan.
First, the only way the cost to taxpayers would ever be $700 billion is if every distressed asset bought under the plan ended up with zero value, which will never happen.
Second, while benefiting some Wall Street players – by rescuing them from bankruptcy – the real beneficiaries of the plan are all of us. That is why “rescue” would have been more appropriate and effective than “bailout.” And, “homeowner rescue,” “retiree rescue,” or “taxpayer rescue” would have been even better.
If this seems too much of a linguistic stretch, remember that the deadliest weapon ever deployed (the MX nuclear missile) is known as the “peacekeeper” and the estate tax is now commonly called a “death tax.”

Perhaps the biggest lesson of all from this experience is that crisis communications is not, as we say, “rocket surgery.” It is often as easy as, “Stay calm and tell the truth as quickly, completely, and honestly as you can.” Sounds simple, but, in this case, some of the country’s best minds and wisest communicators got it all wrong.

Click here to view a PDF version of this article.

Candidates’ VP choices are risky for their brands and reputations

Presidential campaigns can offer great lessons in brand management, and never more so than in the race between Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Barack Obama (D-IL). No two politicians have done a better job of brand management than these two. McCain’s brand is “experienced maverick” – 26 years in Congress, often taking on the leadership of his own party and championing principled and unpopular causes. Obama’s brand is “charismatic change agent” – young, bright, eloquent, and a symbol of a brave, new, globalized world.
But, as they headed toward their parties’ respective conventions, each man’s brand seemed as limiting as it was empowering. As a Republican with vast DC experience, McCain could not hope to compete with Obama for the critical “change vote” that seemed likely to determine the election’s outcome. Obama seemed to be offering many voters more change, as well as inexperience and uncertainty, than they could comfortably swallow. Each needed to expand and shore up his brand.
Enter Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) and Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK). Obama chose first, and, rather than reinforce his personal brand, he opted to “diversify” and shore it up where it was perceived to be lacking. He chose a seasoned DC insider with even more foreign policy experience than McCain. McCain also opted for diversity, going with a running mate who is as much of an outsider as you can get – a first-term, female governor of Alaska with zero DC, national, or foreign policy experience.
Both candidates shored up, but also diluted their brands. Why would a “change agent” pick the ultimate DC insider? Why would a candidate obsessed with foreign policy place a neophyte within a heartbeat of the Oval Office and the nation’s nuclear arsenal? Each candidate has benefited some from the shoring up of his brand, but each has also run the risk of undermining his core appeal.
Which candidate will be better served by his choice? As I write this, there is a growing consensus (supported by recent polls) that McCain has gained more than Obama from his running mate. I disagree. I think the risk for McCain is much more serious than for Obama. If, in the coming weeks, Palin is deemed to be truly unqualified to assume the presidency, the McCain brand is undermined in two critical ways. First, his presidency could be deemed potentially more “risky” than that of Obama. Second, McCain could be found guilty of bad judgment and gross irresponsibility.
If the campaign reveals Biden to be too much of an insider, it will surely take some luster off Obama’s changeagent brand. But it does not raise questions about his judgment, nor does it suggest that the country will be placing a high-stakes bet on his good health and safety.
Curiously, as brand managers, McCain turned out to be the bigger risk-taker, while Obama “played it safe.” At this writing, it seems as if McCain’s gamble paid off. If I were a gambler myself, I’d lay heavy odds it will not in the end.

Click here to view a PDF version of this article.

McCain and presidential temperament

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s nomination to be the Republican vice presidential candidate provoked, at first, a widespread “huh?” from pundits and voters. Today, we know that Palin can draw a crowd and can recite rehearsed, if often vacuous, lines effectively.
But maybe we should be focusing a bit less on the governor’s presence on the Republican ticket and more on the man — John McCain — who put her there, and why he did so.
McCain’s life story is a compelling one. His heroic service as a naval aviator and his horrific experience as a POW in North Vietnam have earned him the admiration of all Americans.
But those chapters in McCain’s biography, no matter how inspirational, do not by themselves earn him our vote for president. Other, equally important factors must be considered as we make that decision.
Among other things, John McCain’s explosive temper is legendary, as is his penchant for berating colleagues and others in the harshest possible tones and terms.
We know, too, that for months and months his campaign was awash with feuds, backbiting, and mismanagement — attributes that do not constitute a prescription for a healthy White House, let alone a successful presidency.
With the last-minute selection of Palin to be his running mate, we learned something new about McCain — that he is fully capable of being shockingly cynical, even when making one of the most important decisions possible.
And, after a couple of weeks or so of the “official” general election campaign, we now realize that McCain and his campaign operatives will stop at nothing in their quest for victory Nov. 4.
McCain and Co. are intent on winning — apparently at any cost. Should their tactics work, the divisions thus created and exploited will make governing our country even more difficult than it already is.
In his acceptance speech to the GOP convention in St. Paul, Minn., McCain made several references to how, as president, he would “fight” for this and “fight” for that. Now it seems that what he is really fighting for is an increase in political polarization and a decrease in our capacity for representative self-government.
Earlier this year I was among those Americans who hoped that the 2008 presidential campaign would be worthy of its purpose, its consequences and its historic significance. We longed for an elevated and respectful debate, one that appealed to our national hopes and aspirations, as well as to our individual and collective civic responsibilities.
Instead, the McCain campaign has decided to treat us with disdain, employing a steady stream of low-minded partisan rhetoric and high-impact political vandalism.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once observed that Franklin Roosevelt had a “second-class mind” but a “first-class temperament.” Today, voters should be asking whether or not, in McCain, we are looking at someone about whom, at best, the reverse is true? Instead of asking whether Palin has what it takes to be vice president, maybe we should be asking if John McCain has the character and judgment to be president. More and more, the answer to that question also appears to be “No.”

PR shares in blame for climate of fear that is gripping America

Are terrorist groups like al Qaeda a “major threat” to the American people? According to a recent Pew Research Center survey, 72% of Americans think so. Not surprising, since the Department of Homeland Security’s current “national threat level” is yellow, indicating a “significant risk of terrorist attack.” There should be a color-coded scale for the public hyping of terrorism set permanently at red.

Two well-researched Op-Eds on this subject appeared recently – one by Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek’s international editor, the other in The Washington Post by Glenn Carle, a 23-year veteran of the CIA’s Clandestine Service. Zakaria points to a new study on terrorism that, when deaths in Iraq are excluded, shows a 65% decline in global terrorist incidents and a 90% decline in deaths from terrorism since 2004. “Why have you not heard about studies like this?” he asks. “It does not fit into the narrative of fear that we have all accepted far too easily.”

Based on two decades’ work in anti-terrorism, Carle argues, “Osama bin Laden and his disciples are small men and secondary threats whose shadows are made large by our fears.” He contends that “this administration has heard what it wished to hear… thereby comforting (their) preconceptions and policy inclinations.”

Whether or not one holds the White House wholly or partially responsible for creating and maintaining this climate of fear, there is no doubt that it exists, uniquely so in the US. As I write this, I am returning from a two week, five-country European vacation where I was not once asked to remove my shoes to board a plane or pass through a security checkpoint, and where the attitude toward terrorism generally is serious, but not hysterical.
What is truly remarkable about this and worthy of our attention and concern as professional communicators is that this US public perception has been achieved entirely through means of communication and PR. Unlike economic fears – rising rapidly at present – the current public fear of terrorist attack is not based on any actual events in the US since 9/11. That’s a long time to sustain a climate of fear merely through the power of communication.

How has this been possible? It is surely attributable, in part, to the fact that there is no shortage of people inside and outside government with a vested interest in promoting fear. The “homeland security” industry is booming. Politicians who can project an image of being tough on terror have little reason to want the issue to recede in importance. Furthermore, there are very few voices on the other side of the issue. What public official or political candidate wants to risk appearing “soft” on terror?

But, there is reason for hope. Brave and authoritative commentators like Zakaria and Carle are beginning to speak up. And January will usher in a new Congress and a new administration less wedded to the “narrative of fear.” Maybe, soon, we will all remember that the greatest thing we have to fear is fear itself.

Click here to view a PDF version of this article.