Some days, you just gotta shake your head. I mean, seriously. Why the hell did NPR's All Things Considered waste air time interviewing Frank Luntz about the SOTU? Sure the guy has a book he wants to pimp. But they already gave him some play on that a few weeks ago. So why, of all the people in the world, do they pick him to discuss Bush's Words: Do They Work? That's not a job for a right-wing partisan hack. That's a job for Captain Obvious TM. Seriously. How many seconds does it take to say, "Uhmmmm....nope?"
Don't get me wrong. The man wants to make a living as a whore who unabashededly manipulates language to further ethically dubious policies for clients that make a killing off the death and destruction they leave in their wake... it's a free country. I'm sure it makes it hard for him to look at himself in the mirror some mornings, but who am I to judge?
To be honest, I knew this interview was going to be a long day's journey into night, but I didn't turn it off... it was kind of like watching a car crash in progress...
Michelle Norris introduced Luntz by pimping his new book about the power of language. Apparently, it's main contribution to the world of rhetoric is, "it's not what you say, it's what people hear." Gee. So much for the last two thousand years of rhetorical oration and persuasive communications. It's going to take me weeks to rethink everything I thought I knew. You know, silly quaint notions like honesty, clarity, consistency and consideration. For example, when Rumsfeld said "We know where they are" I thought he meant they knew where the Weapons of Mass Destruction were. My bad. I'm sure you have a list of similar mistakes you will want to contend with, so I won't burden you with mine.
Moving on...
Michelle characterizes the situation at the SOTU as a
Politically challenged president before a skeptical body of congress and a skeptical public.
That's both accurate and charitable. She then asked Luntz for his overall assessment.
Luntz demonstrated that unlike the President, he really does know where the reality-based world is located. It's just not where he makes his money.
Well, here's the problem. How can you succeed if your audience isn't even tuned in to what you have to say? Most Democrats (I guess he counts Lieberman as a Democrat) and a whole lot of people who identify themselves as independent don't listen to what the president has to say because they've made up their minds.
Now you see why he gets paid the big bucks. He's one smooth operator. Remember this is the guy who just wrote a book that promotes the notion "it's not what you say, it's what people hear" that counts. It certainly sounds to me like he is blaming the vast majority of this country for being closed-minded and petulant, almost juvenile in our irrational refusal to listen to the sole voice of reason personified by The Decider TM.
I certainly don't hear anything that suggests the reason people stopped listening to Dubya had anything to do with the fact that he doesn't know what the hell he is talking about when it comes to really important things like war, prosperity, security, and the environment. I mean, maybe I don't speak English too good or something, but I always heard there's more to leadership than making declarative statements. You gotta be right some of the time too.
Of course, that's just my opinion based on what I heard growing up and I'm clearly old school when it comes to language. Besides, Michelle just let that whole point slide on by like an elephant skidding across an ice skating rink and moved on to some of the speech's notable moments. She started with the section of a letter that Dubya quoted. A letter allegedly written by the Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
In case you have been living in a cave and missed it:
We will sacrifice our blood and bodies to put an end to your dreams. And what is coming is even worse.
Now I don't know about you, but when I hear that I sit up and take notice. I mean, sure these are empty threats from a guy who is dead. But he's not just any dead guy. This is a guy who we were told went to Iraq to have a leg amputated. His presence there was one of the key facts that proved Saddam Hussein was in bed with al Qaeda.
But this guy was more than merely a terrorist. He was a freak of nature. Remember the videos of him shooting the assault rifle? The video showing him standing behind Nick Berg? I certainly heard that was him. All I know is you shouldn't dismiss the words of a dead guy who can grow back an amputated leg. Who knows, maybe he can re-animate. Maybe this war is going to be like The Mummy and all the dead terrorists are going to rise up out of their graves and screw their heads back on and come and kill us in our beds... if we don't support whatever it is the president wants us to support. I could be wrong, but that's what I thought I heard.
What did Frank hear? He was struck by Bush's decision to quote directly from that letter. Again, that's why he gets paid the big bucks. It never occurred to me that Dubya read Arabic. I don't know why he is so modest about that. Someone should tell the folks over at Homeland Security because I hear they are awfully short handed in the translator department. I also hear that Dubya has a lot of slack time on the ranch and loves to read... I think we got some synergy here that is just not being used. Of course, Frank had a whole different take on this:
One of the 10 rules of effective communications is credibility. And to be perfectly blunt, this president has lost a great degree of credibility...among the American people. And so the only way for him to establish the intensity of the threat he feels faces this country is to use somebody else's words rather than his own words.
Holy Crap! Did I hear this right? Did Frank Luntz just say that a dead guy the CIA has admitted got his reputation pumped up by the psyops crowd to be more important than he really was -- is more credible to the American people than a living president who still shows up for work on occasion? If that is true, whoever the CIA had building Zarqawi up, should be transferred over to the White House. Maybe they will be able to pump up Dubya's deflated credibility the same way.
Again, for reasons known only to herself, Norris just ignored that whole line of inquiry and wandered out into left field by picking another quote from the speech for Luntz to comment on:
The evil that inspired and rejoiced in 9.11 is still at work in the world.
His response just baffled me:
He uses another key principal of effective communication, by saying something you do not hear in day to day context, by changing the English to something biblical it catches our ear and therefore we are more likely to pay attention to it.
To be frank, I think Luntz is just phoning this one in. I mean, seriously... when was the last time Dubya gave a speech and didn't rely on biblical imagery or language? I could have sworn I heard him tell us we were on a Crusade. Several times. Another thing I definitely heard was that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Call me crazy, but I could have sworn I heard the President say there was no connection.
Maybe Luntz is just being polite. Maybe he didn't want to embarrass Norris by pointing out the passage we are supposedly being tricked into hearing is really being ignored because the audience knows it is irrelevant noise. Lacking any significant content to work with, Norris finally punts and asks Luntz for his "high points and low points"
To me the high point was when he spoke of the consequences if Iraq ends early. The word "consequences" is one of the most powerful words in the English language right now. Consequences can be good or they can be bad. The actual word itself is neutral, but it causes people to stop and listen. That to me was a very powerful way for him to make his case for his side of the Iraqi war.
Un.be.lieve.able. There is a problem if "Iraq ends early?" Hello...Frank... Dr. Freud calling on Line One. Everyone I hear talking about this can't get the war to end soon enough. The sooner the better. Who the hell is looking for extra innings or overtime? You would think Mr. Magical Language Guy would choose his words a bit more carefully.
Overlooking that enormous faux pas doesn't really solve the problem here. And remember, we're talking about the "high point" of the speech. You just can't ignore the consequences of having a president who doesn't understand the importance of consequences. If he did, I'm sure he would confront the consequences of his consistently bad choices. To be fair, consistently making bad choices is a lot harder than it looks. It's like lying. Once you start, you just can't stop. That doesn't leave alot of time for other activities, like fixing things you broke. That doesn't mean the consequences magically disappear. Future generations can be expected to confront the consequences of this war, the deficit, and all the other stuff we keep hearing about. I don't know how this is all going to end, but "early" is not one of the likely options.
This of course brings us to the "low point." Frank didn't see any passion or intensity. In fact, he didn't see any vision like you would expect from Reagan or Clinton. Wow. Talk about kicking a guy when he's down. Not only is Luntz saying Bush has less credibility than Zarqawi, he doesn't have Reagan's vision or Clinton's passion. Or maybe it's Reagan's passion and Clinton's vision. Either way, that doesn't leave the guy a whole hell of a lot to work with. Good thing Bush ignored New Orleans in his speech, that would have been a real low point.
Listening to this interview, one thing I hear loud and clear is Frank Luntz is working overtime to salvage what little credibility he has left. He's no fool. He knows that in the reality-based world where consequences, commitment, courage, credibility, compassion, honor and sacrifice have real meaning that people can't fill the hole in their hearts with empty words.
I don't know if he is jumping ship, or if he got pushed overboard. Either way, one thing is clear. I didn't hear a single thing from him that shows he got the post-SOTU talking points.
Bill Schneider, Sean Hannity, and even Scotty McClellan all made a point of telling anyone who would listen that the president "struck the right tone by being conciliatory to Democrats..." I hear that we're supposed to believe Dubya is really making an effort to reach out and listen to us so we will give him the benefit of the doubt and wait another six months or a year before he comes back to ask for more money, more time and more resources to implement whatever he decides to try after the current plan fails.
It's a shame nobody's listening to him. I bet if Dubya thought people were actually listening to him, he would be willing to listen to them. If he listened to them, he might actually hear some of their helpful suggestions. Then he could stop making bad choices and we wouldn't have to burden future generations with all the consequences.
Of course, the lesson that Icarus had to learn the hard way is that whether you want to hear it or not, there are serious consequences for flying in the face and teeth of reality. That's why we have a mandate for change, whether Dubya wants to hear it or not.