opinion: presidency

The Theory Behind Obama’s Appearance with the GOP

Just the whole concept and framing were so cool that it almost didn't matter what he said.

By Sharon Fisher, 1-29-10

I watched a video of President Barack Obama appearing at the GOP House Issues Conference for an hour-long Q&A session, and it just made my little wonkish heart go pitty-pat.

For a few years last decade, I went to graduate school for public administration at Boise State University. Remember high school English, with all the man’s-inhumanity-to-man, Hester-represents-the-Church-of-England symbology stuff? Graduate school is full of that kind of thing, and when you’re done, you swear you’re never going to use it again.

But watching the Obama-GOP interaction today, my fingers were itching to write some sort of turgid, footnoted, Org Theory-heavy, academic paper with all that stuff in it that nobody but wonks would appreciate, because it was just so cool. And, you know, I’m barely going to talk about the content. That hardly mattered to me.

Let’s start with the symbology of the event itself. Daniel entering the lion’s den. He accepted an invitation to come on their turf and, reportedly, were “itching to quiz the president and present their policy ideas.” And, you know, typically the guy who owns the mike is the guy in charge.

However, Obama did two things that put him in control. First, it was the placement. There he was at the front of the room. People were called on, and he responded to them individually. This wasn’t a Tea Party free-for-all. He listened until they were finished with their questions—he let them vent, he made them feel heard—and then he answered them, one at a time. He maintained control.

Second, Obama had it recorded and aired on television. One of the things we studied in public administration school was when to expand a discussion to other people, and when not to do so. People who are think they’re winning the debate tend to want to keep the discussion in, while people who are losing, who think they’ll get more support outside, want to expand it. Obama asked to expand it, the GOP went along. Many of the commenters on the event talked about what a great job Obama had done, to the extent that some Republicans reportedly regretted their decision. “It was a mistake that we allowed the cameras to roll like that. We should not have done that,” Luke Russert reported one of them as saying.

The appearance was also a good idea on a communications theory level. Democrats and Republicans both have been addressing each other in the media, but addressing each other as icons or symbols, not as people. And there Obama was, “Mr. President,” in the room with them, and natural decorum took over, as well as people’s inhibitions about saying something to somebody’s face that they’d say to a camera or to a reporter. This was no longer cardboard cutouts of The President and The Opposition, but actual people talking to each other—and, in some cases, opposition or no, delighted by getting his autograph.

Both sides also went to some effort to establish rapport by talking about things they had in common. Obama had something personal to say about nearly every questioner, such as pointing out that he knew one Congressman from Illinois, or another Congressman pointing out that both he and Obama had young children. Pointing out what two people have in common is a great way to establish rapport and make it more likely that the other person will see the value in the first person’s argument. Obama also criticized the media, building rapport with the GOP through use of a common enemy. (It’s okay, Mr. President. I won’t take it personally.)

After that, the content almost didn’t matter, though Obama did a good job there too. He looked for points of agreement, and made them, showing his willingness to hear them. He went meta, pointing out that the way one question was phrased made it not really a question for discussion, but a campaign talking point. He showed that he had been paying attention to their proposals (and, incidentally, blew away the contention that he needed a TelePrompTer to speak in public). And he used fact-based responses to their questions, continuing his call for bipartisan work.

“Again and again, Obama turned the Republicans questions against them — accusing them of obstructing legislation for political purposes and offering solutions that won’t work,” reported Politico.

While there was some pushback from Republicans on the substance of Obama’s remarks, the majority of the media accounts, including some comments by Republicans, praised Obama’s handling of the event.

It will be interesting to see how the mano-a-mano (and womano-a-mano) event changes the tone of the dialogue—and whether it will be repeated.

Watch it for yourself.

[End of article]

Comment By dave, 1-30-10

sharon,,, your wonkish little heart went a pitty pat. that sounds a bit like a john edwards moment.

i thought the exchange went great. neither obama or the repubs were insolent. the discourse was as it should be, pointed, and real. i believe this kind of meeting should occur every couple of weeks. but no need to spend megadollars going to baltimore, i think we have suitable meeting places in DC.

if prez obama couldnt take that little bit of heat then he should of stayed in the illinois statehouse. we will leave all of the softball questions for the mainstream media.

maybe you should relax now and read a couple of chapters of your fave romance novel.

Comment By Mike, 1-30-10

Hi Sharon,

I liked reading your take on the event. I am very much in agreement with you.

Cheers,
Mike

Comment By sharon fisher, 1-30-10

Dave, yes. He treated the GOP with respect. He treated them like adults. He also did it with humor.

And, you know, I think a lot of us could take a lesson from this. Don't demonize our opponents. Talk to them like grownups. Find points where we can agree. Assume the positive, that they *do* want a solution and bipartisan support, and point out actions they're doing that make that harder. Admit areas where we could have acted better. Etc.

(As far as romance novels, I'm reading a novel by Marilyn French, but it's more like a dysromance novel. The closest I come to romance novels is Diana Gabaldon.)

Glad you liked it, Mike.

Comment By Grammar, 1-30-10

Just to pick a nit, the right word is "symbolism", not "symbology."

Comment By sharon fisher, 1-30-10

Well, I used symbology because it means "the study of symbols," which is what we were doing.