Tag Archives: Lyndon Johnson

Mr. Boomerang

Problem Practices, Rhetorical Mastery, , , , , , , , , ,

graph 1 e1658146036565

Living on the planet means preparing for reactions from others that were not anticipated.

University students living in a states like Florida that officially shun the field of sociology will miss one of its most important lessons* First developed by Robert Merton, the idea of unintended consequences occurs when a result is the direct opposite of what was predicted.

                                      Denny Lyon

When working with human groups, unintended effects are bound to occur frequently. Who hasn’t made a seemingly innocent comment to a friend that unintentionally created hurt feelings? My own field of communication was often a beat or two behind sociology. But we are indebted to the concept, which we often call the boomerang effect. Because they deal with humans in groups, sociological studies were among the first to identify effects that are more or less the opposite of what a theory predicted. These outcomes are not necessarily unhappy but, rather, chances for insights on the challenges of tracking and predicting the workings of the mind.  One study I cited in my Sonic Imperative: Sound in the Age of Screens (2021) found that warnings to children about the dangers of earbuds that are dangerously loud often led them to actually increase the volume on their devices.  Go figure.

We know the logic well because a boomerang can happen to all of us: rodeo ropers who end up tying themselves in knots, apologies that go astray and intensify rather than reduce ill-feeling, friends who say ostensibly nice things that we take as demeaning. And there are those surprises when individuals who were supposed to be laid low by official criticism actually have their resolve stiffened.

Part of what makes a good strategic thinker is the ability to anticipate possible unintended consequences. To be sure, even the most successful presidents have been blindsided by outcomes they did not anticipate.  The Vietnam War under Lyndon Johnson is still a prime example of enabling a disaster that the nation sought to prevent. But in terms of the number of decisions that have gone off the rails, none come close to matching Donald Trump’s daily production of unwelcome surprises. The results would sometimes be laughable if the negative consequences weren’t so catastrophic for the nation.

The current stalemate and enhancement of Iranian power over the Strait of Hormuz is exactly the reverse of what he wanted. He surely did not intend to turn a second-rate power into a nation that could control a large segment of world trade. He also seemed to be the only one who was surprised by the decisions of the much-villified former allies for holding back on joining the ill-fated initial attack on Iran. Ditto for his efforts to woo Kim Jong Un, presumably to discourage North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. But after these kinds of overtures, the country invariably “test-launches” another long-range missile.

Or there are his attempts to encourage a dramatic rise in U.S. based manufacturing by raising tariffs on other nations. Yet government data indicates that spending on factory construction is actually falling. Trump seems the least capable of imagining how actions might unfold in ways that are not anticipated. This is probably because he won’t tolerate having genuine truth-tellers around him.

Trump’s tone deafness extends to the effects of his sometimes-caustic comments about groups or individuals. He may be the last to notice the growing hostility his denigration of woman reporters has triggered. To cite a familiar example, CNN’s much-maligned Caitlin Collins is now honored by many for her ability to ignore tasteless smears while asking the President challenging questions.

A more alert democracy would not tolerate a leader who so regularly demonstrates childish and gross incompetence. As in Britain, legal means replace failing leaders. Yet the President’s ossified congressional majority won’t use the constitutional tools available to them to remove him from office.

____________________

*For narrow political reasons, the states of Florida and Texas have decided to weaken opportunities to study “liberal” sociology at many of their universities, removing their courses from the core curriculum.

 

red white blue bar

The End of the Rhetorical Presidency?

Problem Practices, , , , , , , , ,

No one will look at the output of the West Wing in the last four years for words of inspiration.

I’ll leave it to others to sort out the politics of our disheveled presidential campaign.  But we already have more than enough evidence to examine the ruins of something called “the Rhetorical Presidency.” The idea loosely encompasses the norms and traditions that have usually governed the occupants of the White House, at least since the Presidency of FDR. The Rhetorical Presidency includes the public statements and direct addresses made by the figure we used to call the “leader of the western world.” There may have always been a bit of hubris in that name.  But it suggests that the communications coming from the White House were often meant to represent the ideals of governance in a democracy.

We acquired some wonderful traditions from occupants who came in the last century, including Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. All are part of a tradition of using the office to urge the nation to focus on issues beyond their own personal interests. Think of inaugurals, state of the union address, oval office addresses, responses in times of tragedy, and formulations of progressive actions that could be effectively interpreted to the nation.

Generally, the Rhetorical Presidency represents a desire to weave the nation together as a national community sharing common goals, and it has fulfilled that ideal by leaving a legacy of public rhetoric that is more inclusive than divisive, more focused on shared ideals rather than divided loyalties, and usually resolute in not using the “bully pulpit” to demonize or denigrate other Americans.

Trump has used his office to demonize enemies and exercise his voracious appetite for fantasy over policy.

You can see where I’m going with this. If the condition of the physical structure of the White House could represent the current state of the Rhetorical Presidency, we would have to imagine a building ready to be condemned. Its columns facing Lafayette Park would be buttressed by metal scaffolding. Some of the tall windows would be broken and covered with bare plywood. Raw plaster would cover expanses well beyond the porticos. And badly fitted blue tarps covering leaks in the West Wing’s roof would also contribute to the look of an institution that has seen better days. This is the Trump legacy. More than any other modern leader of this republic he has used his rhetorical power mostly to demonize enemies and exercise his voracious appetite for fantasy over policy. The United States Printing Office issues a nicely-bound annual Public Papers of the Presidents for libraries. But no one will look at the output of the West Wing in the last four years for inspiration. If the best presidential rhetoric suggested fair-minded and moral leadership, the recent inability of the current holder to even condemn white supremacy groups speaks to how diminished this vital feature of the Presidency has become.

Not long ago a President was the first mental construct children had of their government. It was safe to allow them to listen to his (and someday her) words. To be sure presidents could have bouts of temper. Harry Truman wrote angry letters, and then never mailed them. John Kennedy mostly confined his public anger to a hapless steel industry trying to raise prices in the midst of high inflation. And Richard Nixon said a lot in private but taped that “decent” family papers in the 1970s couldn’t print. But to a person, they tended to use their public utterances to speak to the shared aspirations of the nation.  Even in the already hopeless early years of the Vietnam War, Lyndon Johnson could still rise to the occasion and scold his Southern mentors hesitating on legislating for true racial parity. On the evening of March 15, 1965, Johnson told a special meeting of Congress the time had long passed to approve a Voting Rights Act with teeth. It was a long speech that was a national lesson in tolerance, ending with a phrase associated with Martin Luther King:

What happened in Selma is part of a far larger movement which reaches into every section and state of America. It is the effort of American Negroes to secure for themselves the full blessings of American life. Their cause must be our cause too. Because it’s not just Negroes, but really it’s all of us, who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice.

And we shall overcome.

This was a very imperfect man still able to find the right words  to push an imperfect nation to do the right thing. That is what the Rhetorical Presidency could be about.

I miss those days.