The Problem With The President's Double-Talk

The more I observe President Obama in settings where he's required to give responses without his admited use of a tele-prompter, the more I began to realize just how wrong the media may have had it when it comes to his often touted grace under fire and clear explanation of the issues. As I watch him during these occasions, I must admit that what others observe as the exhibition of a certain "coolness" and gift for communicating difficult situations, I take as slight hesitation and a politician being consistantly carefull about what not to say. I'm not just getting the sense the he's merely holding back, but rather that he's avoiding being too clear and too direct, for fear that someone may understand exactly what he said.

But as is often the problem with double-talkers, I often go back and forth from thinking that he's merely uninformed, to resigning that he is, but that his woefully non-specific answers are really brilliantly constructed monologues designed to intentially mis-direct the listener. If either case is true, this means that this president's words need to be much more scutinized then they've been to date. Thus far, he hasn't been accused by his adversaries of outright lying; at least publically.
So one would have to conclude that this now frequent lack of a central core in his responses means that either the words are intentionally or unitentionally forming hollow statements, or that the real answer lies somewhere in between or outside all the fancy word-play.

Once presented with a question, his slow, measured dialogue appears to the untrained eye, and perhaps to those who want to see it, as a man who is constantly trimming down his intellect; putting the answers to various complex issues into words that us mere mortals can follow. However, I am now starting to think that he is not merely simplifying his thoughts, but that he's actually inflating his line of vocabulary just enough for the press not to question what is being said. A sort of a political slight of hand. Though this tactic is not uncommon among politicians, for a president who consistently pointed out these diversionary tactics when they were being commited by Republicans and promised to change this sort of approach, one can't help but be surprised that Obama not only uses these tactics, but does so in a way that would seem to indicate that he is acutley aware that his persona is, in fact shielding him from heavier scrutiny. Afterall, if it sounds official it must be true, right? Especially when the messenger is Barack Obama.

To me, it's similiar to when, as a new home owner, you get that stack of mortgage loan documents to sign. The loan officer knows that you're awash with many emotions; pride, hope, and excitemnt just to name few. Understandably, you start off trying to decipher every word of the legaleeze but after a while, the fatigue of trying to make out all that technical jargon and the anxiety of getting those keys cause you to figure that hey, since everyone else signed these exact same forms, they must be legitimate. Therefore, you just start signing the huge pile of paper because you already know you came to close on that particular dream house, regardless. In other words, you're already "sold."

It is similar with Obama. He's the house we're already in love with and have already been sold on. It doesn't matter what the terms are. Everyone else loves him, which helps to validate our own adoration. No need to read the fine print or even scrutinize the regular print. Not when the messenger appears to embody so much of what we want to see in a president. Yet, it is precisly this "fine print" that contains the facts within the language.

Which is why, in the case of Obama, the casual observer hears what they want to, yet the opponent can't accuse him of lying. This, in fact, is how he became president. The commercial media in general and the press core reporters in particular have been very willing participants when it comes to encouraging this perception. For a closer look at this, take for example, his Thursday press conference with German Chancellor Merkel, whom he met with at the White House to discuss foreign affairs.

After some opening remarks, came the question and answer portion during which a reporter asked the Chancellor if any "commitments" came out of the meetings with regard to Germany excepting some of the remaining Guantnimo-bay detainees. Though the question was directed to the Chancellor, Obama replied, saying, "Well first of all, I have discussed, in the past with the Chancellor Merkel, uh, our interest in closing Guantnimo."

Now, I'm not exactly sure when his once solemn pledge to close Guantinimo within one year from the day of his January announcement became only a mere "interest"; but maybe I'm just being nit picky. However, notice the line "in the past". Apparently, he wasn't even referring to this current visit. He than mentioned, as he has before, that the prison camp located off the coast of Cuba continues to be a "symbol" of The United States straying from our core ideals in our ligitimate persuit of our national security "concerns".

He then indicated that whenever the U.S. does start looking for new homes for the detainees that "...We are going to be looking for the help of our friends and our allies as we execute that process; with one that's going to be admitedly difficult politically." "So in the past", he repeated, "I've spoken not only to Chancellor Merkel but other European leaders...,We're pleased the EU has determained the legal framework for how to evaluate the detainees that are in Guantanimo, and we have seen a positive response from countries across Europe in the general sense of wanting to help. I think the particulars, the specifics of what detainee would be transfered where, those are still at preliminary discussions. She has an obligation to make sure that Germany's national security interests come first in these considerations, and we understand that. We'll continue to have, you know, constructive negotiations on some of the issues. But Chancellor Merkel has not made any commitments and conversations have remained at a fairly general level at this point". I do see that last sentence as Obama's way of implying that Germany doesn't want to play nice.

Now what does he want us to take away from that response? I think the answer is, "Whatever we want to."

I've also noticed that once off prompter, he tends to go for detailed when direct is all that would be neccessary. The sheer length of this and other responses seem like attempts to make one forget the actual questions; for even Obama, after one particularly lengthy reply, had to ask the reporter to repeat the second part of his question. To be sure, this vauge and contradictary style of politi-speak is not something that's exclusive to Obama. However, the lack of any attempt by these journalists for a follow-up or even a clarified response is not only unique but brow raising, to say the least.

Often, he is allowed by the press to connect two contrasting results to the same idea without any need to clarify. Take, for example, his response regarding the detainees. In it he stated that Europe and the U.S have been engaged in, at once, "fairly general conversations", which he stressed and "constructive negotiations". Well, which one is it? They are not the same thing. One implies nuance, the other implies specifics. Again though, it was striking how he was allowed to get away with that answer; not being challenged in the least. But wait, it gets better...

As if to sense Obama slipping on the ice and anxious to give him some cover, the Chancellor quickly chimed in that they had in fact discussed the issue of the detainees.
"We did discuss the issue, as was said, and I made it very clear we were not going to shirk our responsibilities." Again, appearing more difinitive but not nailing down the time or location these talks took place, but still giving a sense that it could have been during this meeting.

The Chancellor's answer was in fact, much more clear, direct, and most importantly, shorter and more focused. The outcome, it appears, is that they were able to read each other and make all of us think that they had made new progress when in actuality, there was probably no new information to report on the US and Germany's standstill when it comes to the detainees. But yet, they couldn't have just said that. Yet, we had to be taken on a 4 minute ride around the facts with very little to show for the journey.

One thing though is certain. As the fog of inauguration begins to disipate, it will be more and more difficult for Obama to use pre-calculated words in the face of ever-changing events; and double-speak to hide his intentions. And as we naturally begin to move past the pride, pomp, and circumstance that have surrounded him and listen to his words more carefully, the press will have to better support the public's interests by demanding that the facts not be allowed to be misrepresented.

This is already starting to happen on Capital Hill where resistence has been building for such Obama policy initiatives as healthcare, cap-in-trade energy regulation, and the administration's proprosal of a sweeping overhaul of the financial sector via a huge powershift from the U.S. Treasury to the Federal Reserve. The 789 billion stimulus and GM and Chrysler bailouts are also threatening to be major attack points for Republicans in 2010 as the details of those policies are brought back up for public scrutiny in the hopes of a least re-taking the House.

This will happen for the rest of us eventually as the media, the press, and most importantly, we the people begin to probe deeper and insist on clarity when presented with vauge and indirect responses. The stakes for minorities are high in general, but for African-Americans in particular as an administration so deeply invested in the philosophy of wealth distribution will undoubtably be pulling many of those resources from the incomes of the lower and middle class earners in the years ahead. In these dire times however, my hope is that this happens sooner, rather than later. For the sooner we all realize that we are not doing this democracy of ours any favors by allowing its constitutionally designated, bible-sworn defender to not have to account for the historic decisions he makes that so greatly effect it, the better.