Increasingly visuals matter; words not as much. Tone though is important; it is an important emotional signal. But, since all I have is words, a word on each.
Quick polling on the reaction to President Trump’s speech to Congress and the country underscored the importance of tone. Fifty-seven percent according to a CNN poll had a very favorable reaction to the speech. This boost was not due to the policy content of his address.
Trump, the day before the speech, had graded himself on his first five weeks. His grades: A+ on effort, A on accomplishments, C to C+ on messaging. Given that too often his voice has been loud, his words harsh, and his feelings raw and indignant, I would give him a D- on messaging. Trump had won the biggest job in the country, but was often acting like a jerk.
Hopefully the tonal pivot on Tuesday night is indicative of what Americans can expect. Hopefully the positive feedback Trump received will have the impact of a customer survey at Trump Towers. Trump hotels presumably feature a polite service staff and the President is in a service job. The next formal vote on his service is 22 months away and there will be hundreds of polls along the way.
Words? I thought his outreach at the very outset, recognizing Black History Month, was important. Indeed, much of his address was about those who economically or culturally have been left behind. While policy differences do not get resolved by speeches, the President made a number of nods in the right direction. So while most pundits recalled his immigration message and thought little had changed on the content front, I disagree. My opinion, he was pivoting toward the second stage in his deal negotiations with several applause lines that forced Democrats to stand up and clap. At the same time, many fiscal conservatives in the Republican Party stood only because of peer pressure. Trump joins a long line of politicians that promise benefits without sacrifice.
Everybody left, right and center agreed on one thing – the visual impact of Carryn Owens was riveting. On January 29th, she lost her husband, Ryan, while he was protecting America. On March 1, the world watched her; with tears streaming down her face she looked toward heaven repeating, “I love you.”
Next to Mrs. Owens, in an impossibly awkward position, was the President’s daughter, Ivanka. Mrs. Owens was in a simple black dress. Ivanka looked as if she had just stepped from the Oscar stage. The visual, unintentionally, underscored America’s problem.
There are two Americas and where wealth is concentrated few serve in the nation’s military services. And in most of the country, few can afford more than a simple black dress and often that must be purchased on credit.
America’s first families have often been wealthy. Our new first family is both characteristic and uncharacteristic – I suspect that only the Kennedy family could have comfortably shared similar zip codes.
Candidate Trump reached voters in zip codes that were unfamiliar to him with savvy and divisive rhetoric; he won. Now, if he is to actually go from style to substance and on to accomplishment, he will have to begin to unify disparate elements. His speech was a beginning, but only a beginning.
Al Sikes is the former Chair of the Federal Communications Commission under George H.W. Bush. Al recently published Culture Leads Leaders Follow published by Koehler Books.
mark dellacqua says
If a CNN poll gave the Trump speech a 57% favorable rating then it’s safe to assume if the same question was posed by an objective news media source the numbers would have been much higher. For Sikes to comment that Trump’s favorable rating had nothing to do with “the policy content of his address” only indicates that like most of the mainstream media he chooses to make comments that are purely subjective at best and/or infected with biased contempt at it’s worse.
Mr. Sikes also chooses to focus on what President Trump’s daughter Ivanka was wearing in comparison to the “simple black dress” that Mrs. Owens wore that night in an effort to use a play right out of the Barack Obama playbook on class warfare. Sike’s claims that all of this was unintentional which I’m sure it was, but to try to read into that moment in time as a symbol of the unfair advantages that the haves have over the have nots only illustrates how desperate the media has become with their anti-Trump propaganda. To say that in regards to “most of the country, few can afford more than a simple black dress and often must be purchased on credit” is again dramatic and less than accurate and in the end it doesn’t bring Mr. Sikes the desired results because most Americans who can read aren’t that stupid . After reading this commentary it’s hard to believe that when Mr. Sikes sat down that night to listen to President Trump address Congress that he did so with an open and objective mind taking this event at face value. With his nitpicking and weak analogies it strongly suggests that he watches the speech with his mind already made up as to what he is going to write. The characters in the story provide some “visual” details in order to help his commentary along but his analysis was written long before Trump walked out and addressed Congress.
Mr. Sikes claims that visuals matter and I couldn’t agree more. What I don’t understand is why Mr. Sikes choose to write his piece like he did. What jumped out on the screen to me was the Democratic congresswomen [ dressed in white ] who refused to stand when the President first entered the room to address Congress. That is something that has been done from Day 1 out of respect for the office of the President. They also chose not to stand for the ovation that was given to Mrs. Owens during the President’s address as well. As an American the only words that I can use to describe that event are despicable and really low. When your political ideology is so warped it causes you to do things like that it’s time for a career change: prison guard perhaps. These visuals are so overpowering I have to ask myself, why didn’t these visuals stir Mr. Sikes up?
Why did he choose to write about what President Trump’s daughter was wearing when about 3o congresswomen all dressed in white, who were all sitting together, and who refused to stand not only for the President but the wife of a soldier who was recently killed overseas serving his country? Visuals do matter Mr. Sikes, and if you think that what Ivanka Trump wore that night was jarring, how do you rate 30 members of Congress refusing to stand in an ovation of appreciation to the wife of the soldier who died serving his country? Maybe you should take a second look.
Steve Paayne says
“They refused to stand for Mrs. Owens”
https://youtu.be/cu5xwuz5uGw
James Nick says
“They refused to stand for Mrs Owens”! Seriously? Is this the sort of picayune nonsense that we’re going to be treated to for the next four years, or hopefully impeachment, whichever comes first? Nevertheless, let’s play the game anyway. Consider this from Snopes: “… A more accurate description of events than the ones spread via outrage-provoking blog posts would state that “Democrats stood for Gold Star widow, but maybe some of them didn’t stand and applaud as long or as much as some Republicans did afterwards,” a description contrary to what was implied by misleading headlines such as “HORRIBLE! TOP DEMOCRATS Refuse to Stand for Gold Star Widow.” A more complete explanation here… https://www.snopes.com/democrats-stand-seal-widow/.
Conservatives have absolutely no standing to criticize Democrats for the way they react to trump. It has been widely reported how, on the very night of President Obama’s first inauguration, the Republicans conspired to blockade President Obama’s agenda, political appointees, and judicial nominations in unyielding, lock-step unity. They weaponized the filibuster and aggressively acted to delegitimize him at every opportunity as being a secret, foreign-born Muslim even though he conclusively won the popular and Electoral College vote twice by wide margins. For eight years, the majority of people that voted for the hope and change President Obama offered were denied by a determined minority.
The Republicans redefined the rules of political engagement. They have systematically destroyed any civility and comity that may have existed in Congress and with it, any hope of bipartisanship. Now that the tables have turned, it is the height of hypocrisy to expect, even demand, that progressives not abide by the new rules. Deal with it.
Steve Payne says
Please note that was my point exactly.