The Hindu Business Line : The spin that helped Bush into a <I>doosra</I> term

THE film Fahrenheit 9/11 depicts the US President, Mr George Bush, as doing nothing but watching kindergarten children several minutes after he was informed of the WTC attacks. Quite consistently, therefore, after the deadly tsunami struck Asian coasts, it took several days for a vacationing George Bush to snap back to reality. Stung by the criticism of being too miserly in announcing aid, and the stigma of a self-proclaimed `big brother' who couldn't foresee a catastrophe, Mr Bush has made hurried announcements of support.

India doesn't seem as interested in providing monetary aid as it is in joining the multilateral initiative with the US, Japan and Australia, in tandem with the United Nations, even as our Navy is actively providing relief in Sri Lanka and Maldives. This may well be a wiser choice, because critics point out that Mr Bush has a record of committing more than what he delivers. Take for instance the $5 billion per annum development assistance for African countries as the Millennium Challenge, announced with much hype in 2002. Nothing has been disbursed so far.

All that could be one more spin for the founders of Spinsanity.com, Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer, and Brendan Nyhan, who weave a discussion of `Bush, the media and the truth' in All the President's Spin, published by Simon & Schuster (www.simonsays.com).

"While debate continues to rage whether Bush is a liar, few have discussed the way he employs the insidious tools of public relations, which make selling a tax cut as slick and dishonest as the worst of corporate marketing," says the preface.

And the introduction narrates the tax story in Mr Bush's words during the 2000 campaign: "Under current tax law, a single waitress supporting two children on an income of $22,000 faces a higher marginal tax rate than a lawyer making $220,000. Under my plan, she will pay no income-tax at all."

The book adds: "What Bush failed to mention was that his hypothetical waitress probably already paid no federal income tax." Comparable to the goods transporters service tax in the last Budget.

Though criticisms may hardly matter to Mr Bush, who will soon be basking in the inaugural festivities marking the beginning of his doosra term, helped by the spin that bowled him into the second innings, the authors are keen that `falsehoods spreading through the press' don't grow into `conventional wisdom'. They perceive the public's requirement to be non-partisan in the criticism of politics, which is `collapsing under the weight of deception'.

Mr Bush is "the highest profile carrier of a virus infecting our political system," assert the trio, and show as vile symptoms, misleading statements, disregard for discussion, and treating policy debates as marketing challenges.

Despite all these quirks, Mr Bush may not be lying, for his dishonesty is `different', explains the book. No falsehood, but "well-designed phrases and strategically crafted arguments to distract, deceive, and mislead." Do you see our netas nodding in agreement?

The authors propose that the right definition of political dishonesty is "to judge public officials" words against the known facts." A part of the problem can be explained, as they say, by what Sidney Blumenthal identified: Obliteration of the distinction "between campaigning and governing."

Mr Bush never tires of "emotional language designed to provoke gut-level reactions, slanted statistics that are difficult for casual listeners to interpret, and ambiguous statements," all leading to "a permanent campaign of policy disinformation." Ideal prescription, that is, to get truth lying in state.

It is not as if the earlier presidents did not use the media. Franklin D. Roosevelt deployed PR through `fireside chats' over the radio, John F. Kennedy exploited the television and used polling as a routine part of governing, Richard Nixon created the White House Office of Communications, and Ronald Reagan had a communications policy moulded around legislative strategy.

On Reagan's Latin American Office of Public Diplomacy, the authors write: "Employing six Army specialists in psychological warfare, it planted fictitious leaks, allegedly from US intelligence, with the media and placed op-eds written by government staff under the names of outside experts and political figures."

Bill Clinton resorted to `war rooms', where "officials parsed the meanings of words in disingenuous ways to protect the president," when pushing policies and fighting scandals.

How did Mr Bush's spin machine work? Here's a clue. For over a year, Karen Hughes, "known for relentless message discipline", guided the president to use "softer, female-friendly language, such as `employers' instead of `business', `moms and dads' in place of `parents', and `tax relief' rather than `tax cuts.'"

Hughes also "disliked verbs because they conveyed action, not feeling." To her, `but' was taboo, because it suggested "harsh choices, conflict, even confrontation." Ari Fleischer came later, and he is extolled as "the most stubborn and combative press secretary in modern history."

The trick that the White House uses to get media coverage is "disciplined repetition of talking points". Another leverage is the `message of the day' — so there is just one thing for the press to cover.

There are "PR-influenced titles to major proposals", such as `Clear Skies', `Healthy Forests', `Operation Enduring Freedom', and so on.

The authors list the "five major strategies" that Mr Bush uses to spin, none original but all used "in effective combination". First, `factually incorrect' claims such as "his false assertion that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq."

Second, using "unrepresentative examples that are presented as typical" as when pushing tax proposals.

Third, making claims that rely on `questionable information', such as when "the administration asserted that aluminium tubes purchased by Iraq could only be used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Fourth, "attacking those who raised questions in an attempt to quash or discredit legitimate dissent," as in the aftermath of September 11.

And last, "strategic use of language to imply controversial conclusions or outright untruths he wouldn't dare state publicly."

Recommended reading for our politicians who wish to hone their skills.

Economics@TheHindu.co.in

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
New Year resolve

`Consistency' in the skies

The tsunami test — Are `reserves' really `resources'?

The spin that helped Bush into a doosra term