When liberals called Ronald Reagan “The Great Communicator,” it was one-third compliment, one-third insult, and one-third justification.
Compliment, because yes, he communicated well. Insult, because it implies that he was mostly flash with little substance. And justification, because this is the way both sides explain political success of the other side: it must be because they are better at rhetoric; it can’t be because their ideas are more appealing.
So, the Lefty line is: Reagan was popular not because he helped win the Cold War and steer the economy onto better footing, but because he really knew how to make people feel good.
Along the same lines, the closest many executives come to ever admitting mistakes is taking blame for not communicating well enough. Mayor Fenty said his problem was not “bringing people along” with his reforms. Obama confessed after the November 2010 shellacking that he hadn’t always communicated his awesomeness effectively.
We expect that from the politicians and partisans. When it comes from academics, it’s cringe-inducing.
Prof. Drew Westen at Emory penned an epic piece in the NY Times recently arguing that Obama’s problem is simply rhetorical. Specifically, Obama hasn’t told the right kind of stories, including good guys and bad guys. Yes, some of Westen’s critique is substantive — Obama hasn’t been liberal enough — but even that is ultimately about rhetoric. Westen thinks Obama weakened his message by watering down his policies.
Westen is simply wrong about Obama’s rhetoric. Will Wilkinson writes “Mr Westen seems not to have paid much attention to what Mr Obama has actually said in his speeches.” Andrew Sprung lays out in detail that Obama said exactly what Westen wanted him to say.
Obama has plenty of opportunity and ablity to speak. If he’s failing, it’s silly to blame it on his rhetoric.
