The global import and gravity of this week’s North Korea-United States summit in Singapore is clear. As for what success looks like? A completely different story.
From an international perspective, this is disappointing and possibly dangerous; from a communications standpoint, it was entirely self-inflicted. But like much of the external messaging from this administration, its inconsistency is fueling the miasma of polarization and uncertainty across media platforms – while also wearing out Americans of all political beliefs.
For starters, here are some working definitions of success that the White House has laid out in recent weeks when it comes to the meeting with the North Korean dictator:
- Complete and immediate denuclearization of North Korea
- A phase-in for denuclearization
- A “Meet and greet”
- “Start a dialogue”
This outward ambivalence (as the Washington Post’s James Hohmann calls “winging it”) from the White House about its aspirations from the historic summit are unhelpful in two ways: they could indicate a degree of weakness to the North Korean delegation, and allow for every syllable of reporting and commentary to be second-guessed and all post-facto praise and criticism to be factually tied to some public utterance from the White House.
For example,
- A reporter can say afterwards that “the summit was a success by the White House’s own standards of starting a dialogue” OR
- A reporter can say “the fact that no terms of denuclearization of North Korea were agreed-upon by the leaders was a clear strikeout for the White House on the global stage.”
And both of these statements could be backed by public comments by the administration. As a former communications director in the U.S. Senate and now a communications strategist, this wide variation in what success could be is the last thing you want from a major messaging opportunity. When laying out a vision for future goals, it is always critical to allow yourself some wiggle room for external events and surprises if things do not go according to plan. But this administration, through its public posturing, has created a margin of error for this high magnitude event of roughly 100 percent. The trouble here is obvious: if anything can be a success (or a failure), there can be no agreement on whether the objective was reached.
As much as this administration doesn’t feel tethered to traditional norms and tactics – this was part of its appeal to broad swaths of Americans – its public comments are also untethered to one another. Just watch the White House press briefings to see how each day is a new stance or a clarification of a morning tweet.
Unlike previous administrations, the White House can no longer be judged mostly on the view of the role of government that the president represents. With Bush, you could argue the merits of pre-emptive strikes on potential threats; with Obama, you could dispute the proper role of government in healthcare and the private sector. And so on through history.
With Trump, because his statements often offer a wide range of views and responses to the Beltway and the world, there can be no agreed-upon starting point of what is being argued – so everyone gets to pick their own meaning, due to their best understanding or political motives. It feeds a non-stop cycle of news, commentary, and information that can point to any statement as proof of positive results or the shambles of a failed attempt – a recipe for communications chaos, not fake news.
The end result of this is that the public understanding of the goals and outcomes of this White House are constantly fluid. Just when you have come to a conclusion or have found where the administration is positioned on an event or issue, a new fact or statement pops up that throws everything back up in the air for reconsideration.
A foolish consistency may be the hobgoblin of a small mind, but this is messaging run amok. It’s harming the president and the presidency, because contradictory words devalue every public utterance or tweet, but it is also exhausting Americans who are trying to keep up with the moving target of talking points and reshuffling the deck every single day. Pew Research found this week that 7 in 10 Americans are claiming unprecedented ‘news fatigue’, with 77 percent of Republicans being weary compared to 61 percent of Democrats or Independents.
All this is part and parcel of this Jackson Pollack Presidency, where facts, thoughts, and opinions are sprayed towards upon the body politic haphazardly every single day, leaving understanding and comprehension entirely in the eye of the beholder. Pollock was an incredibly successful yet divisive abstract impressionist of the mid-20th century who dripped paint upon canvas in a disorganized fashion from a paint can, and allowed observers to interpret or project their realities upon the art.
Much like the Trump communications approach, there is no thin, precise paint brush at play with the words or messages that emanate from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue – and the public is permitted to judge it subjectively. If you are a Trump partisan, you see power and purpose, the delivery of a bold new approach to statecraft and leadership. If you are not sold on Trump, you are frustrated at the attempt, and see “mere unorganized explosions of random energy, and therefore meaningless” political communications, as art critic Robert Coates famously observed of Pollock.
Here lies the core problem: politics and executive power are not jazz music to be played by “winging it,” nor are they impressionist art. The application of power requires deploying discipline and some amount of strategic consistency in order to communicate and reach your goals. When there are no lines on the road and no roadmap in your hand, how are people to understand and determine your success – or your ability?
By muddying up the communications process, Trump is hurting his overall cause of being able to plant a flag and clearly broadcast his accomplishments to the world (and American voters). He may believe that this fog machine of uncertainty is working for him, but when Americans want clarity, if not consistency, they may seek it elsewhere if he cannot provide it.
Matthew Felling (@matthewfelling) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is a former print/TV/radio journalist, media critic, and U.S. Senate communications director, now serving as a public affairs and crisis consultant with Burson-Marsteller in Washington.
