Thompson's "Fireside Chats" Leadership

Pundits, radio hosts, and bloggers are working feverishly to identify every conceivable comparison between undeclared (but clearly fundraising and campaigning) presidential candidate Fred Thompson and the most revered conservative in modern memory, Ronald Reagan. They point out several traits Thompson appears to share with Reagan: a successful acting career; a commanding personal presence; possession of plain, articulate speaking skills; and a deftness with handling the media. While it may be unfair to compare any candidate to the larger-than-life legacy of Reagan, many conservatives go to great lengths to insist that Thompson, perhaps more so than any other candidate (except perhaps the likewise undeclared Newt Gingrich), could carry the Reagan mantle to victory in 2008. Yet perhaps Thompson supporters are missing another important comparison they could and should be making: Thompson bears similarities to Reagan and to Franklin D. Roosevelt. Whomever conservatives choose to nominate in 2008 must concern himself with carrying the dual mantles of Reagan and FDR.

Why is the mantle of FDR important for a conservative candidate in 2008? Stated simply, FDR led America through the Great Depression and World War II by talking directly to the people and explaining the challenges facing the nation and what Americans could do to overcome them in terms they could understand. He did not do this by depending on newspaper reporters to be objective and inform the people of his policies and decisions on his behalf. He did not rely on the entrenched media figures of his era to make his case for him or put media spin on current events. FDR instinctively understood that a president leads best by making direct appeals to his countrymen or if not appeals, at least informing them of current events from his perspective rather than passing through any political correctness filters. FDR’s famous Fireside Chats, thirty direct broadcasts to the nation between 1933 and 1944, were a tremendous use of existing media to unite farmers and laborers enduring the Depression, to describe war in Europe and America’s neutrality, and to explain eventual American entry into the war and provide progress reports designed to promote continued sacrifice and commitment to victory.

As an example of the direct and simple appeal to citizens commonly found in the Fireside Chats, on December 9, 1941, FDR gave the following update on the aftermath of the Pearl Harbor attack (Chat #19):

We are now in this war. We are all in it -- all the way. Every single man, woman and child is a partner in the most tremendous undertaking of our American history. We must share together the bad news and the good news, the defeats and the victories -- the changing fortunes of war.

So far, the news has been all bad. We have suffered a serious setback in Hawaii. Our forces in the Philippines, which include the brave people of that Commonwealth, are taking punishment, but are defending themselves vigorously. The reports from Guam and Wake and Midway Islands are still confused, but we must be prepared for the announcement that all these three outposts have been seized.

A politician could not speak more plainly than FDR did on that occasion. Undoubtedly the honesty and simplicity of the message created trust and loyalty among his listeners, who in short order served under his leadership as Commander in Chief. Direct communication resulted in direct and vigorous involvement in the war effort. He minced no words. Things appeared bleak, and that bleakness would only be reversed by all out war and total victory.

Fred Thompson, more than any other conservative candidate to date (except perhaps Newt Gingrich), is utilizing today’s available media to communicate his ideas directly to Americans. People are not gathered together as families around the radio to hear these modern versions of the Fireside Chat, but they can subscribe to Thompson’s “chats”, which come in form of columns or news commentary, via email or read them through links on nearly every Internet news site. He covers a wide variety of topics, ranging from confronting Iran, to Israel’s remarkable patience under fire from Palestinians, to calling for the U.S. to renew the practice of broadcasting pro-democracy programming via radio and Internet directly into nations oppressed by totalitarian governments. FDR chatted with the American people in his broadcasts, and Thompson’s guest columns on National Review Online, Townhall.com, or the Wall Street Journal’s online OpinionJournal give readers the sense that he is speaking informally and directly to them. Like FDR and Reagan, Thompson has a knack for communicating in an endearing and sincere manner that is best experienced without media filters or punditry. Americans joke, only slightly facetiously, that current presidential addresses take 45 minutes but the pundits interpret or translate what the president meant to say for days afterward. Great communicators need no pundit interpreters.

For all his charisma and organizational skills, it is mind boggling that Mitt Romney, arguably the most articulate of the current GOP candidates, did not adopt Thompson’s media strategy. Thompson’s guest columns are brief, usually approximately one page at most. They appear regularly, and are met with great interest and broad readership on the conservative Internet sites. Romney has frequented radio talk shows and news channel studios, and has aggressively advertised in early primary states via television spots. Thompson has also done all of these except the TV spots. Romney’s official web site, however, only offers readers a skeleton glimpse of his policy positions. Writing guest columns for conservative blogs or Internet sites, as Thompson does, would increase his Internet presence and allow Romney to communicate directly with potential voters rather than relying on news channels to report accurately the substance of his ideas. All news organizations seem to have an agenda, and Romney should join Thompson in chatting directly with the American people on a regular basis through guest columns or posting and podcasting for established blogs.

It should be remembered that Reagan employed his own version of FDR’s Fireside Chats while serving as Governor of California. The popular appeal this type of communication generates with voters should not be underestimated. President Bush, though he has tried through televised speeches, has never resonated with the American people, except in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when any president could have done so. As a direct result of the President’s lack of direct communication with the American people, he has relied on the MSM to broadcast his remarks, which are then diluted by mostly left leaning pundits or reporters and rendered virtually ineffective. His leadership in wartime has suffered, and the American people still have no idea what sacrifices and costs will be involved in a Global War on Terror except for ambiguous phrases like “it will be a long struggle,” or “we’re fighting them there so we won’t have to fight them here.” The Bush administration seems to have forgotten that Americans live in the golden years of the Information Age, a time when citizens demand detailed information and will get it somewhere else if they are not receiving it from the White House. Unfortunately, most of the sources they turn to are liberal and the truth of an issue becomes the ultimate victim. Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon were wartime presidents with poor communication skills and no practiced history of direct communication with Americans. As a result, neither successfully conducted the Vietnam War or convinced citizens that the war could and should be won. Bush faces the same fate, and future presidents must learn from his experience.

If Fred Thompson successfully runs for the presidency, he will already have an established loyal base of readers and a track record of direct communication with citizens. He would further possess the vehicle for making his case to the people in the event of any crisis, be it war, terrorism, natural or economic disasters, or simply a piece of proposed legislation, like immigration reform. Fred Thompson has, through his columns, laid the groundwork for effective future leadership, and his conversational communication compares favorably with former great communicators who have served as president. In the modern era of the 2008 election, an effective Commander in Chief must also be an accomplished “Communicator in Chief,” utilizing all available media to enlist citizens in just causes and rallying them to victory if conflicts arise. Fireside Chats worked for FDR and Reagan, and their modern equivalents, guest columns or blog posts, may prove decisive for whichever candidates use them most effectively.

Click here to view NRO’s archive of Thompson’s guest columns.

Technorati: Fred Thompson Ronald Reagan Mitt Romney Franklin Roosevelt Presidential Candidates Fireside Chats Campaign Strategy

America Overrun By "Crazy" Optimists

Brit Hume has a knack for mining precious gems from the vast caverns of media hysterics to share with Special Report viewers, and yesterday he did it again by exposing Newsweek senior science editor Sharon Begley’s criticism of President Bush for being (inhale sharply!) too optimistic. I remember that the media had similar criticisms of President Reagan, apparently preferring the dour demeanor of Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale to confidence, a cheery disposition, and hopeful expectations for the future. Begley, who Hume points out has no credentials in the field of psychology, psychiatry, or any other field related to mental illness, declared that the president is “in a state of denial” about the Iraq War. Of course, it is common for presidents to inspire their countrymen when times are tough. Yet Begley does not see inspiration or leadership in the president’s unshaken belief that the war will be won. Instead, she sees what she perceives as symptoms of mental illness. From Brit Hume’s Political Grapevine:

Sharon Begley offers as proof the president's insistence the war will succeed, despite what she calls "setback after setback." She continues: “While it's always risky to psychoanalyze a politician from afar, a few things in his past are consistent with the capacity for denial."

She offers up the fact that as a seven-year-old boy, the president tried to comfort his mother after his baby sister died of leukemia. Begley writes: "The tip-off for denial is perpetual optimism, a pathological certainty that things are going well." She also cites the fact that Mr. Bush has battled alcohol abuse, saying such people, "typically need to see the world in black and white in order to stay on the wagon."

Begley is not the first media personality to equate optimism, also known as faith, with mental illness. Bill Maher referred to religion as a neurological disorder, and placed biblical stories were on a par with other fantasy tales like Jack and the Beanstalk. Maher would surely agree with Begley that President Bush’s “perpetual optimism” is akin to religious faith. I do not know if Begley is an avowed atheist like Maher, but clearly she understands little about the relationship between optimism and religious faith. Most people who are actively involved in religion live life with the certainty that a power greater than themselves is watching over them and all that unfolds in life is part of a plan that will ultimately benefit humanity. That belief is what places setbacks or even suffering into perspective. Knowing that even terrible things happen for a reason makes them tolerable or even turned into opportunities for growth.

Bill Maher and Begley have forgotten the lessons of history. The three most successful wartime leaders in American history, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt, suffered nearly overwhelming defeats in the early years of their wars, and they had no illusions that things were going well when they were not. They had disputes with their generals; they faced citizen unrest and dissatisfaction with how the wars were conducted; they were inundated with depressing reports of lost battles and massive casualties. However, they remained optimistic that ultimately their cause would win because it was just, and they did the only thing they could: they pushed forward with “pathological certainty” in eventual victory. President Bush’s approach to the Iraq War is no different. He has acknowledged many times that Iraq has not gone exactly as planned and has adjusted strategies accordingly. Only permanent pessimists like Begley or Maher, or political opportunists like Pelosi or Reid would declare the new surge policy a failure before it has been fully implemented. America should appreciate optimism in its presidents, and beyond appreciation, should desire it from its leaders.

America was founded in a spirit of “pathological certainty.” The Declaration of Independence and Constitution are perhaps the most perpetually optimistic documents ever crafted by mankind. They set forth the certainty the Founders exuded that they were acting out the will of God and that man’s rights came from God rather than government. By placing the care of the nation in God’s hands, the Founders expressed their optimism, or faith, that their efforts would succeed regardless of any temporary setbacks or direct threats from within or abroad.

The compassionate conservative in me feels sorrow for Begley and Maher. If optimism is a mental illness, then what would pessimism be considered? Chronic negativity and a “doom and gloom” outlook which never exhibits hope of eventual success are signs of depression, which is an actual, medically classifiable mental disorder treatable with medication. There is a reason psychiatrists do not prescribe medications for optimism: “perpetual optimism” is a sign of a sound mind and an indomitable will. It is only when all other possibilities are exhausted that a cancer patient must face the reality of pending death. Until that point is reached, the patient presses forward, relying on the only truly dependable source of strength: optimistic faith. With that faith, even death itself cannot conquer the human spirit. Was Winston Churchill psychotic because he vowed that Britain would “never surrender?” The only thing crazier than pressing forward when all seems lost would be retreating when difficulty is encountered.

I am glad that the current president is an optimist who is not easily cowed by challenging decisions or violent attacks. What kind of nation would America be without “perpetual optimism?” The Wright brothers would have stuck with ground transportation in Begley’s version of psychotic America. Every entrepreneur takes a leap of faith when a new business is launched. There will be lean years, and stiff competition, and possible failure at every turn. “Perpetual optimism” is what separates successful Americans from those who live in constant fear of failure, and thus never take risks. Pessimists are the armchair quarterbacks of the world, sitting comfortably in their mediocrity criticizing the performances of those who willingly face seemingly insurmountable odds with faith and cheerful optimism.

McCain: "I'm Sure I have a Policy on That, I Just Need to Check What it is"

After 25 years in Washington (as a Congressman and Senator), 2008 presidential candidate Senator John McCain, when asked his position on government subsidies for contraception, made the following statement on the campaign trail in Iowa, as reported by the Telegraph (UK):

"I'm sure I have a policy on that. I just need to check what it is," he replied, before seeking illumination from his aides.

Can a candidate or elected official really claim to have a policy on any issue if it is not ingrained sufficiently into his knowledge base that he can recall it without prompting from an aide? This one sentence response illustrates much of what is lacking in political campaigning and in a larger sense, in governance itself. Elected officials believe themselves too busy to dedicate themselves to any actual study and internalization of issues, preferring instead to hire cadres of aides to learn the issues for them and advise the politicians of what they should think and say about an issue. While this approach allows the politicians more time to engage in glad-handing and stump speaking for their election and reelection campaigns, it also has the unfortunate consequence of assuring that the individuals Americans actually vote for suffer a deplorable paucity of personal awareness of the issues on which they vote. Those issues seriously affect the nation’s course in economics, health, morality, and national security, but are deemed less important than campaigning by candidates while others learn the issues for them.

The question asked of Senator McCain was not a complicated one. Either you believe that the government should spend taxpayer money to buy contraceptives for America’s youth who choose promiscuity over abstinence, or you don’t. It is highly improbable that Senator McCain did not know what he thought about such a question, and if one defends his response by praising his wisdom in clarifying his position before answering, one is actually defending a candidate’s right to say what others want to hear rather than what he personally believes or what needs to be said. Stating what you believe and saying what needs to be said are demonstrations of leadership. Declining to answer questions until you can confer with aides and read your politically correct cue cards is a demonstration of unprincipled ambition. Soothsayers tell the masses whatever is popular and what they want to hear. Leaders tell the masses what needs to be done and why, knowing that it will likely be unpopular.

McCain also seems to be seeking a career as soothsayer to Europe and other regions that harbor anti-American sentiment (hat tip to Wizbang Politics). During his speech to the farmers of Cedar Falls, Iowa, McCain expressed great concern for America’s image around the world, particularly in Europe, and that restoring a good image (i.e. being more like them and less like us) will be a “top priority” if he is elected president in 2008. On the surface, the concept of improving relations with our once loyal European allies seems laudable, but then McCain explained what steps he would take to improve America’s image abroad and the pandering to European popularity takes an ominous turn:

"I would immediately close Guantanamo Bay, move all the prisoners to Fort Leavenworth (an army base in Kansas) and truly expedite the judicial proceedings in their cases," he said. "I would reaffirm my commitment to address the issue of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. I know how important this is in Europe in particular."

Perhaps Senator McCain’s aides, who apparently tell him what his positions are, should advise him that he was elected to represent Arizona in the Senate, not The Hague, and that if elected president in 2008 he would be obligated to implement the will of the American electorate, not the EU. Climate change is also very important to Al Gore, so perhaps Senator McCain is auditioning for a VP spot in Gore’s undeclared but inevitable run for the White House, since these statements embracing liberal ideologies will assure McCain’s quick exit in the GOP primaries and availability as Gore’s running mate.

More troubling than his desire to please Europe is the fact that he embraces the idea of closing the Guantanamo detention facility, where enemy combatants are held and interviewed. At Guantanamo, terrorists captured during our counterterrorism actions worldwide are kept them from killing our troops in the field, and we receive the added benefit of occasionally gleaning valuable information from them that disrupts future terrorist attacks or provides better understanding of the structure and operational tactics of al Qaeda and other groups.

John McCain is opposed to torture, and based on his well-documented experience as a POW in Vietnam, the reasons for his opposition are valid and unassailable. However, Guantanamo is not Abu Ghraib, and as confessed 9/11 planner and self-proclaimed super terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed clearly stated in his testimony last week, he was never tortured at Guantanamo and no part of his confession was the result of coercion or was extracted through torture tactics.

I wrote recently about the legal and practical dangers associated with closing Guantanamo and relocating the detainees to military brigs inside the U.S. Proposals for closure and relocation have come from Democrats in Congress, but Senator McCain has allied himself with their cause, another issue on which he has ignored the will of the people in order to cast himself as a “maverick” or as more palatable to the liberal media than his more conservative opponents for the GOP presidential nomination. Virginia’s citizens, regardless of party, are opposed to the relocation of Guantanamo detainees to Quantico or other facilities within the Commonwealth.

If Senator McCain’s support for facility closure is sincere, he should also be in favor of relocating the terrorist detainees to Arizona for criminal trials in federal courts in his own state. So far, Senator McCain has been silent on whether his Arizona constituents would approve of having hundreds of terrorists transported to and housed in their state. Perhaps the Senator has a policy on this, but needs to check with his aides to learn what it is.

Throughout his Senate career, Senator McCain has straddled the fences between the two parties far too often to be trusted by either one. In some respects, though he worded it differently, McCain echoed a sentiment he apparently shares with John Kerry. Kerry, as readers will remember, called America “an international pariah” during a World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland. McCain, in his Cedar Falls speech, stressed his desire to counter the “ugly American” image prevalent in Europe. Kerry and McCain seem to share the conviction that anti-American sentiment in Europe is America’s fault, and that American policies and administrations (President Bush in particular) are responsible for giving Europeans cause to dislike America.

Conservative media, including Spy The News!, lambasted Kerry for his remarks, but McCain deserves equal condemnation for ignoring history (which he claims to study and love). Europeans have always disdained America and its culture. We were considered uncouth ruffians by the French during the Revolutionary War, and that opinion has not been changed by 231 years of global leadership in technology, industry, transportation, medicine, and military achievement. Not even our generous rebuilding of nations destroyed in world wars has moved European nations permanently into America’s corner.

Liberating France in WWII did not create an eternal debt of gratitude among the French, and rebuilding Germany did not prevent that nation from protesting against American Cold War policies or opposing our post 9/11 military actions. The Marshall Plan was unparalleled in human history for its strategic compassion and generosity, yet few of the nations restored to viability by that plan can be counted today as reliably pro-American. The idea that if America would stop being so American, and would try to be more like Europe, then Europe would love America and never oppose it again is patently ludicrous. The same logic is put forward by anti-war demonstrators who claim that if America will address the root causes of terrorism, or if America will stop supporting Israel, or if America will just sit down and negotiate with the terrorists, the terrorists will stop wanting to kill us.

Appeasement will always fail, regardless of whether the appeasement is given to “friend” or foe. America did not cause anti-American sentiment. Blaming America is an international pastime rivaling only soccer in popularity. Whether it stems from envy, revenge, fear, insecurity, or ignorance, the motivation behind anti-Americanism is rarely the result of American action or inaction, though we are demonized for both. They dislike America for what America is and for what the EU aspires to be but falls short.

Senator McCain’s aides may wish to consider researching whether the American electorate wants America to be more, or less, like Europe. Europe is gravitating, rather quickly, toward universal socialism via the EU. Religion has been purged from political discourse, and politically correct tolerance there has resulted in a severe decline in societal morals and families bound by marriage. The only segments of European society that are continuing to marry and produce children are religious immigrants from the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. Senator McCain, Senator Kerry, please remind us again why we want to be more like Europe? Other than 2 hour naps during lunch time and a mandatory month of annual summer vacation, there is little reason for America to adopt European societal or political habits.

Presenting Europe, and the rest of the world, with a strong, confident, and noble America that says and does what is right may not always win friends among the feckless, but it is a demonstration of leadership. McCain and Kerry consistently place their concern for global popularity ahead of what America’s voters want from their leaders. Also not surprisingly, McCain’s declining appeal to presidential election voters will assure that he, like Kerry, will remain a soothsaying Senator with frustrated presidential aspirations.

Hillary's "Tough" Leadership: "Please, Please, Please Don't Leave Iraq to Me!"

Hillary Clinton’s first campaign visit to Iowa this weekend provided an opportunity for potential voters to test and witness the Senator’s self-proclaimed mettle. Although Clinton sought to demonstrate her forcefulness and caste herself as presidential timbre, she exhibited much more cowardice than conviction when it comes to Iraq.

Pressed repeatedly to explain her vote for war in Iraq, the Senator could have defended her vote with the truth, which was that all available intelligence agreed Iraq possessed WMD and was funding terrorists. Clinton instead trotted out the tired, “If I had known then what I know now . . .” Monday morning quarterback excuse. When truth was on her side, she eschewed it for a partisan attack on the President instead, choosing to ride her Congressional colleagues’ coattails by claiming that President Bush “misled Congress.” Hillary showed her disregard for truth by blaming President Bush, when she and Senator Kerry and nearly all others in Congress accepted as fact the National Intelligence Estimates on Iraq that they, Prime Minister Blair, and the President acted upon in good faith.

While trying to convince potential voters that she had the courage, strength, and background to stand up to “evil and bad men,” Hillary instead communicated a cowardly lament that she, if elected president, may be forced to face difficulties in the Middle East. Hillary is so entrenched in anti-Bush rhetoric that she now refuses to take credit for actually standing up to an “evil man” through her vote to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein. When asked to clarify to whom she referred with the phrase “evil and bad men, “ Clinton mentioned Bin Laden but not Hussein, a man who gassed Kurds, waged war on Iran, and tortured and killed thousands of Iraqis. She laudably stood up to him but is now so ashamed of it she blames Bush for tricking her into supporting the war. That Hillary, whom many insist is the shrewdest woman in politics, could be duped by a President endlessly ridiculed by Democrats for being ignorant, stupid, and anti-intellectual, is laughably ironic.

In her Iowa remarks, Clinton disingenuously stated that President Bush intended to leave the Iraq War for his successor to resolve: "I am going to level with you, the president has said this is going to be left to his successor," Clinton said. "I think it is the height of irresponsibility and I really resent it." Compare that with what the President actually stated to USA Today: "The War on Terror will be a problem for the next president. Presidents after me will be confronting ... an enemy that would like to strike the United States again.”

The War on Terror and terrorist attacks clearly will continue through many future presidencies, but the President did NOT state that he intended to leave the Iraq War for his successor to conclude. Perhaps she would prefer that President Bush solved the Iranian, Palestinian, and Syrian situations as well prior to leaving office so she can focus exclusively on issues more dear to her than national security, such as socialized medicine. That Clinton would resent being forced to deal with difficult international and national security issues speaks volumes about her alleged competence and toughness.

Was Truman out on the stump while FDR was on this deathbed telling reporters, “FDR told me this war is going to be mine to solve as his successor, and I think that is irresponsible and deeply resent it! He better end this war before he passes away!”? No, Truman took the reins when handed them, and demonstrated a determination to end the war through overwhelming victory. When that succeeded (yes, victory is the best exit strategy), he presided over an amazingly compassionate rebuilding and protection of the former enemy nations, in essence what we are trying to achieve in Iraq on a smaller scale.

Truman was praised for implementing the Marshall Plan after the elimination of Hitler, which protected a new government in Germany from being overrun by the Soviet Union and others looking for postwar spoils until it could stand on its own. President Bush seeks to do the same in Iraq after the removal of a dictator, and the obvious reality is the Iraqi government is not yet ready to sustain and defend itself. Should a time limit be imposed, a drop dead date by which if they are still not capable we should abandon them to whatever fate may bring (it will bring an Iranian invasion)? Fortunately Truman and succeeding administrations were not as shortsighted as the current stable of Democratic presidential aspirants. A viable democracy in the Middle East is no less worthy a goal than rebuilding Germany or Japan, and our commitment to help Iraq until it is self-sustaining or officially rejects American intervention should not depend on any politically motivated timetable.

If Senator Clinton wants to be viewed as legitimately qualified on national security and military matters, she should demonstrate a willingness to take on difficult challenges, not run from them. She should not beg and plead publicly for President Bush to hurry and resolve the Iraq War so she will not be required to resolve it if elected. A true executive would relish the opportunity to step in where others have (in her view) failed, and if necessary, lead in a new direction or finish the work of the preceding executive. In many respects, this is why former governors are generally better prepared and suited for the presidency than Senators or Congressmen. For Senator Clinton to openly shun the responsibilities of executive leadership and plead for issues to be resolved before she might face them personally signals an appalling lack of courage, optimism, charisma, and leadership.

Technorati Tags: Iowa Marshall Plan National Intelligence Estimates Executive Leadership Intelligence Failures Bush Administration National Security Iraq War Global War On Terror Hillary Clinton