Yes, my sources say the White House communications shop muzzled the Office of Science and Technology Policy from offering a robust defense of climate science after Climategate. And yes, Obama has utterly failed to offer a strong, coherent message on climate science and related energy policy (see “Obama calls for massive boost in low-carbon energy, but doesn’t mention carbon, climate or warming“).
I’ve been as critical of Obama about this as anybody, and like you, have come to the conclusion that he doesn’t appear to get the dire nature of the situation we’re in. But, in ‘fairness’ to the President, it must be pointed out that the White House sucks at messaging in general.
Look at their signature health care initiative. Please tell me what their message is? (see “Can Obama deliver health and energy security with a half (assed) message?“) Yet, health care is an issue that everybody in the White House cares about, unlike, say, climate, which beyond Obama and Holdren and, formerly, Browner, is of little political interest to almost all other senior WH staff.
Based on my discussions with leading journalists, as well as current and former Administration staff, this White House is the worst at communications in the past 3 decades. Indeed, the Obama WH is the worst of both possible worlds. They are dreadful at messaging BUT they think they are terrific at messaging, so much so that they shut down anybody else in the administration that might actually be good at messaging.
And that brings me to Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus and her op-ed today, “President Waldo: Barack Obama is often strangely absent from the most important debates.” Here are some highlights (lowlights?):
On health care, for instance, he took on a big fight without being able to articulate a clear message or being willing to set out any but the broadest policy prescriptions. Lawmakers, not to mention the public, were left guessing about what, exactly, the administration wanted to see in the measure and where it would draw red lines.That was not an isolated case. Where, for example, is the president on the verge of a potential government shutdown — if not this week, then a few weeks from now?
Aside from a short statement from the Office of Management and Budget threatening a presidential veto of the House version of the funding measure, the White House – much to the frustration of some congressional Democrats – has been unclear in public and private about what cuts would and would not be acceptable.
By contrast, a few weeks before the shutdown in 1995, Clinton administration aides had dispatched Cabinet members and other high-ranking officials to spread the message that cuts in education, health care and housing would harm families and children. Obama seems more the passive bystander to negotiations between the House and Senate than the chief executive leading his party….
The president has faltered, though, when called on to translate that rhetoric to more granular levels of specificity: What change, exactly, does he want people to believe in? How, even more exactly, does he propose to get there? “Winning the future” doesn’t quite do it….
Where’s Obama? No matter how hard you look, sometimes he’s impossible to find.
And Marcus is a progressive.
See, climate hawks, even on really important stuff that is central to his reelection, stuff that the entire White House cares about, stuff that they have probably done a dozen polls on, the President and his team have no simple, persuasive message — when they have a message at all, that is.
The ‘good news’, then, is that we shouldn’t rush to judgment on what the President actually believes on climate change based on his general silence and/or mis-messaging on the subject. It’s just the way he is.
The bad news is that folks I know who have worked with him say, he’s unlikely to change. Obama is a good speechmaker — and thankfully presidential elections are graded on a curve, so Obama only has to outshine the GOP contender, which is unlikely to be hard in 2012. But he is no message maker. He is no Ronald Reagan, much as he aspires to be.
And that means we are still the change we’ve been waiting for. Saddle up. Or, rather, blindfolds off!
Related Post:
- Is progressive messaging a “massive botch”? Part 2: Drew Westen on how “The White House has squandered the greatest opportunity to change both the country and the political landscape since Ronald Reagan”
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
So, in spite of having Chu and Holdren on staff, “he doesn’t appear to get the dire nature of the situation we’re in.”
So either he doesn’t believe the dire predictions or he thinks we have plenty of time to get around to reducing GHG and implementing an energy policy. I wish he would aspire to be a “message maker” like FDR or even TR; please forget Reagan.
If he isn’t worried I guess all is well…
In his defense, not withstanding Mulga’s as usual astute analysis, he has a hard job running a fossil/fissile war economy which is commanded by globalized corporate fascists. That is why he has to take so much money from Wall Street banksters who are decimating the working class, financing the mining industries (including hydralic fracturing, or fraking) and buying all three branches of government.
For example, doesn’t everybody realize how badly we need to spend $35 billion on flying gas cans. And how ’bout that Xtra Long international tar oil pipeline that Hillary is arranging folks. Of course we need these, we’re on drugs.
Obama is not messaging to us. He is messing with us. Call him (and his energy secretary) Mr. Atomic.
Didn’t you noticed the progress in messaging? How they introduced vocabulary over the past weeks, starting with “Sputnik Moment”, something along your post from a while back. And last 2 weeks i noticed they mention “National Security” implications as well. As does CAP now, but all in a very shy way if you ask me.
What i’m missing the most is some real results
For example sending a clear message when putting Koch on trial for his funding of attacks/manipulation on the science.
Or forcing oil companies to switch to clean tech.
Or forcing the republicans to stop voting against actions to combat climate change.
All the above is required in order to prevent worst case scenarios, and we all know that worst case scenarios is no option!
Considering how little headway is being made by the Obama administration at even communicating to the public about AGW, let only policy implementation, I fail to see much real-world difference whether he accepts climate change or not.
A difference that doesn’t actually create even a real discussion on change, might as well be no difference at all.
[JR: There isn't any. Sometimes sarcasm isn't self-evident in blog posts.]
Well, I can’t say I disagree with this analysis, but that’s small comfort. It is up to us to, to paraphrase FDR, “make him do it.” So what is the next step for climate hawks? How do we mobilize and lead from the bottom? Suggestions?
Well if you see whats happening down under, it would be interesting what would happen in the US.
I think things would surely get out of hand….
James Hansen on climate change and carbon pricing
Dr. James Hansen, a world-renowned climatologist, discusses his concerns about climate change and the need to put a price on greenhouse gas emissions with the Pembina Institute’s Julia Kilpatrick. Dr. Hansen was the keynote speaker at a recent carbon pricing conference in Connecticut.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-Mhy85pHYM
debunk this science on artic sea ice recovery mechanism before too many people read it
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/Tietsche_GRL_2011.pdf
[JR: Why? It doesn't prove anything interesting, as far as I can tell.]
In a recent Commonwealth Club presentation, David Brooks commented that there is a genuine “niceness” to this administration; an unwillingness to engage in political slugfests over issues. Being nice is OK, but with the current bunch of climate criminals we have to deal with, niceness is a waste of time. Like many, I’m completely mystified as to why the rehetoric over this issue hasn’t heated up. I even wrote a letter to Donna Brazille asking why the Dems don’t get confrontational about it and got no response.
It just seems to be all carrots and no sticks in the Congress these days. I shudder to think what will happen when Inhofe publishes his book characterizing climate change as a hoax.
Getting back to Brooks for a second, he did raise the question of whether the country is ready (capable?) of confronting the challenges we currently face. I often wonder what the result would be of America suddenly gaining a real understanding of what we are in for. Would we step up or just take a fetal position in a corner somewhere?
Instead of quoting and admiring and reading ronald reagan, why doesn’t Obama act more like this man?
“WHEREAS on September 8, 1939, because of the outbreak of war in Europe a proclamation was issued declaring a limited national emergency and directing measures “for the purpose of strengthening our national defense within the limits of peacetime authorizations,”
WHEREAS indifference on the part of the United States to the increasing menace would be perilous, and common prudence requires that for the security of this Nation and of this hemisphere we should pass from peacetime authorizations of military strength to such a basis as will enable us to cope instantly and decisively with any attempt at hostile encirclement of this hemisphere
Now, THEREFORE, I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, do proclaim that an unlimited national emergency confronts this country, which requires that its military, naval, air, and civilian defenses be put on the basis of readiness to repel any and all acts or threats of aggression directed toward any part of the Western Hemisphere.
I call upon all the loyal citizens engaged in production for defense to give precedence to the needs of the Nation to the end that a system of government that makes private enterprise possible may survive.
I call upon all our loyal workmen as well as employers to merge their lesser differences in the larger effort to insure the survival of the only kind of government which recognizes the rights of labor or of capital.
I call upon loyal State and local leaders and officials to cooperate with the civilian defense agencies of the United States to assure our internal security against foreign directed subversion and to put every community in order for maximum productive effort and minimum of waste and unnecessary frictions.
I call upon all loyal citizens to place the Nation’s needs first in mind and in action to the end that we may mobilize and have ready for instant defensive use all of the physical powers, all of the moral strength, and all of the material resources of this Nation.
Source: Public Papers of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Volume 10
Pigs are flying….
Haley Barbour: Obama Is Deliberately Trying To Drive Up Energy Prices
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/02/haley-barbour-hits-obama-_n_830192.html?ir=Green
I disagree Joe. While the White House is generally lousy on messaging on climate there is a decided lack of engagement on the issue. It’s almost as if they are scared to take on the Republicans on the issue. They have given it lip service from the get go and their lack of urgency underscores that, to me, they just don’t get it. While I’m sure any Republican in office would be far worse (by taking us backwards) we are not making any great headway with Obama. We need a full scale offensive on the issue and what we are getting is basic training drills. Unfortunately the future doesn’t look any better as I have seen no plans to push climate change to the front of the domestic agenda.
[JR: I'd agree, except the WH seems "scared to take on the Republicans" on almost every issue. Look at the cuts to EPA and the deficit issue. But "scared" is the wrong word. Obama just hates confrontation.
I'm not saying the WH hasn't failed catastrophically on this issue. Just that it is one of many. I was semi-humorously urging folks not to take it personally. Obviously, future generations will take a less kind view.]
As someone who has been involved in politics and understands how things work, I’ve often said its great to have grand ideas but people have to realize what is realistic. Its not just the president whom it has to pass, it has to pass both houses and also get the public onside or he will be turfed from office and replaced by those doing nothing. I believe going part way or doing something is better than nothing. The best thing is to focus less on the politicians and more on the public. The reason the right has been so successful in the US is they have been able to convince a large enough chunk of the population to agree with them and thus there is a political market to run on these views. The views espoused on this blog aren’t shared by a large enough chunk of the population. That means selling the ideas. This is definitely doable, but requires a different tactic. If you can convince enough of the public that AGW is a dire threat that requires serious action, the politicians will take action. Preaching to the choir goes nowhere. As someone in the business world, it doesn’t matter how good a product you have, if you cannot market it, it will go nowhere. I think the focus should be on how to sell the ideas. I would suggest getting some people with marketing experience and find ways to market the idea. Also starting up third party group which the right has done so successfully could be effective. Look at how effective the Tea Party is, to do the opposite, the same type of tactic needs to be used but from a different side.
Sometimes it’s hard to tell – is the administration’s lousy messaging due to -
1. They don’t know how to message.
2. They don’t care.
3. They care but they don’t understand the importance of seizing the moment.
4. They want to keep as low a profile as possible until after the 2012 election.
My impression is that they do not understand that presidential assertion is really important in getting useful stuff done. Often they seem lost or MIA.
Whatever, it’s a big disappointment.
@ JR’s response to me:
My apologies about my own lack of clarity.
I did get the impression that there was sarcasm in your post, I really meant it as more of a general “venting” about the lack of progress in the Obama administration. It wasn’t directed at your article, I should have been more specific.
———————————————————————————————–
@ Lief #14:
That sounds about right to me. It just isn’t seen as such today (yet) due to the much larger size (and power) of the group and a media that treats denial of science and evidence as a legitimate position.
If human civilization survives this, and doesn’t collapse, I’m sure that there will be chapters in school text books on the psychopathology of people like Sen. Inhofe, the Kochs, etc.
Maybe a chapter along the lines of “Denialism and self-destructive ideologies in the late 20th and early 21st centuries“.
To Mark #10, that’s why Roosevelt is considered a great president and leader, and why, unless he makes a complete turnaround, Obama won’t be.
To Mickey #13, one of the ways that a president “markets” something is with the bully pulpit. Obama seemed to have the talent and inclination during the election, but seemed to revert to being a mousy academic once he actually became president. He’s had a few shining but fleeting moments, but overall has really been a big disappointment all around.
Joe is right, he really does seem to hate any kind of real confrontation. That would make him a good pastor, or maybe a marriage counselor, but not a good president.
Messaging? What’s that? Is it communicating? What a lame term – messaging.
Anyway, it is not Obama that is at fault. Most citizens tune into Fox, Limbaugh or one of the many other right wing sources for their “news”.
[JR: No they don't.]
How much time does Obama get on those outlets to communicate with his countrymen and women?
It is not the art and skill of getting the word out on health care or environmental initiatives – its the means to do it.
The right wing owns the megaphone for what now passes as news for all practical purposes.
Judging by the recent lame attempts at messaging by the Australian government in trying to sell their carbon tax maybe we are seeing a more general trend?
I cynically suspect that the difficulties of keeping strictly to the “helping families” message while reassuring their corporate “backers” is proving more difficult than they thought.
Poor messaging comes from a poor understanding. The White House is reacting to the present, responding to history – but fails to address much of the future.
Like no other time, we have climate scenarios that are reasonably well-described and proven by physical models. Anyone can know, and prepare for the chaotic destabilization to come. We know there will be sea level rise – measured in feet; increased warming, droughts, melts, fires, storms. And we know this will happen in our lifetimes and during the projected lives of our children.
The White House is dictating history. They need only to examine the science to see what a future will be. There is plenty of room for plain speaking and direct leadership.
Bob C. @ 5 suggests that we need to go out and make Obama do it, FDR style. He also wonders what climate hawks can do next, to mobilize from the bottom. Well, that got me to thinking…(thanks, Bob)!
Hmm…also, too bad Obama doesn’t seem to like confrontation–or is it?
MAYBE WE CAN “MAKE LEMONADE!” How so? Well, IMO, it seems that Obama’s likely perception of where he faces the greatest current threat of AGW confrontation comes from the climate CRANK croud (CCC)–not from climate hawks. In fact, I doubt he’s even heard of a climate hawk (CH).
I’ve seen nothing about CH’s in the MSM. Could it be that climate hawks, being mostly nonconfrontational themselves, are fearsome in name only? Could it also be the case that CHs are just too few in number, on top of other limitations, to have any influence?
Well, lets see, how can a few have an influence? And since the US is the source of the most cummulative CO2 released so far let’s think about how a relatively few Americans might have a big influence. OK, Americans love their cars more than anybody. Our cars are comfortable islands of freedom. We hop behind the wheel and happily barrel down the highway, often oblivious to the posted speed. (Any CH SUVs still out there–come on–time to fess up!)
So, here’s how we could be noticed: every Sunday afternoon at 3pm, we could have CH time on the highways–a time when GHs flock together and ‘fly’ down the highway at the posted speed, being very careful not to block emergency vehicles nor any of the CCC that could be prone to road rage. A bumper sticker-sized sign on the back of the CH cars might simply say “Going the Limit, Saving Lives” and then give a web address where folks can get more information. (No need to encourage roadway confrontations based on something as controversial as AGW!)
Of course, major messaging to the MSM, and indirectly to Obama, would ultimately make it clear that there is a VERY concerned group of citizens who will go to great lengths to encourage him to BE the LEADER we need to educate and unite Americans to fight the mother of all problems, the battle to preserve a livable climate for posterity. We want Obama to give a clear “State of the Climate” speech that informs misinformed Americans, then declares a needed ‘war on climate change.’
Now, I can hear someone saying, “Roger, you’re proposing that CHs DRIVE CARS TO PRESERVE A LIVABLE CLIMATE! “Isn’t that wrong?” My answer is (sarcasm on), “Oh, right; we dare not emit any carbon in an attempt to preserve a livable climate for ourselves and generations to come.”
Seriously, isn’t a livable climate worth it? Besides, due to greater fuel economies at slower speeds, doing the above action can actually conserve overall fuel consumption–with the bottom line depending on the number of cars slowed, the degree of slowing, and the fuel efficiency of the action-leading vehicles, with Volts & Leafs best!
When should this begin? Twenty years ago would have been smart. We’d be on a far different track by now. So how about this weekend, just to get warmed up for the spring, for Earth Day, and for the summer?
We’ll be Going the Limit (for the Climate) this Sunday, March 6th on highways surrounding Boston, MA, including, appropriately “America’s Technology Highway.” Isn’t about time we put America’s technology to work to mitigate the coming hell and high water?
And isn’t it time we climate hawks staredt to sink our beaks into the soft underbelly of the climate movement–to awaken it from snooze mode?
By the way, no offense to all of you regular CP contributors, such as Gail at Wit’s End, who are already doing SO much–it’s just that I’m worried that the “Game Over” light is going to go on before we collectively are able to get our leaders working for US rather than for the likes of the super-rich, selfish Kochs of the world!
So who’s a climate hawk? Drastic times call for drastic measures. Sundays at 3: Go The Limit!
Warm regards,
Roger
@ William P:
Respectfully I must disagree there.
First, there are plenty of people that watch/listen/read more than one source of news.
Second, there are still lots of other news and info stations for TV radio and print.
Third, one benefit of being the PotUS is the powerful “bully pulpit” of the State of the Union address.
Even in his State of the Union addresses the reality of AGW has been barely touched on at all. Even when he has the means to communicate the seriousness of the situation, he still doesn’t take advantage of it.
Prof Donald Brown of Penn State has a nice blog on climate ethics:
“… it would appear that at least for his first term President Obama will not be able to deliver on his promise to make the United States a responsible participant in solving climate change”
http://rockblogs.psu.edu/climate/2011/02/the-world-waits-in-vain-for-us-ethical-climate-change-leadership.html
Obama has hardly been an agent of change. The Health care bill was a watered down compromise, that FDR or Harry Truman would not have have even considered.
Obama said he wanted to change the tone in Washington, by ‘working together’ well he has done that I guess, by agreeing with the Republicans on just about every demand they have made.
They say Obama does not like confrontation. Throughout American history every successful President has either confronted the opposition (FDR, Truman) in harsh terms, or had a masterful messaging technique (JFK, LBJ,Reagan) Obama has failed at the former and latter.
I do not think Obama will address the issues of climate change now or in a second term (unless some dramatic event happens, like no ice in the arctic come mid September, or an event in the American wheat & corn belts, that parallels what happened in Russia last year).
And even with these events, he is unlikely to get anything from a balky intransigent congress, who he has decided not to confront.
Obama is merely a caretaker President – unable or unwilling to take the risks to right the nations growing problems and the growing menace of climate change. A future President likely after 2025, will be forced into telling the truth to the nation about the dire consequences we face if we continue with Business As Usual with C02 emissions.
The Prez. is waiting for a report saying
How overwhelming the public support
And local gov.s support is showing with
The white roofs. Maybe a pos. Report
Will come out next year on the $ saved.
Obama is accommodating to the point of debility. He believes he is being pragmatic, but he is simply weak.
After the disastrous Bush administration, the sword was in his hand to strike mighty blows for health care reform and sane energy policy, but he dropped it in favor of a teddy bear, trying to play nice with the cynical, morally bankrupt Republican Party. What a waste; what a tragedy.
Sadly, we must hope he is re-elected. The prospect of the current crowd of Republicans controlling House, Senate and presidency is too awful to contemplate. It would certainly mean the end of meaningful environmental protection law in the U. S., not to mention another wingnut or two on the Supreme Court. So, I’ll be putting on the bumper sticker, gritting my teeth and voting Obama in 2012.
That is interesting news that the Whitehouse actively prevented any refutation of the smears by those lying about the stolen UEA emails.
At the time, Obama was actively blocking any global progress at Copenhagen by demanding an utterly unjust and patently unworkable future national emission rights ratio of each American having three times that of each Chinese by 2050.
Add to this Obama’s well-documented active sabotage of any and every chance of getting the climate bill through the senate.
Alongside the total lack of any sort of climate education initiative, and the lack of any hint of exposure of the corruption of corporate funding of denialism.
Plus the recent kite-flying of how EPA action on CO2 may be ‘deferred’ for two years, on top of the two years of its inaction to date under Obama.
Taken together, these point to Obama’s first message on climate as being the predominant one. It was a few weeks after taking office, when it was very quietly declared that the Bush/Cheyney unilateral baseline of 2005 for negotiations would be retained, thereby reneging on the US signature of the UNFCCC treaty. It was not a message to the US public, but to China:
“There will be no change in the established US policy of brinkmanship – we will wait to see you collapse under the pressure of climate destabilization rather than concede an equitable climate treaty.”
Upholding this US policy requires :
1/. a total lack of any significant US action to control its emissions; (as non-fossil energies (NFEs) don’t displace a single tonne of fossil fuels without first agreeing the declining global cap on their usage, the tardy US progress on NFEs doesn’t affect this requirement);
2/. a continuation of the ‘pledge and review’ circus to retain some plausible credibility among allies abroad;
3/. a continuing lack of US public pressure for action on climate as its impacts worsen at home and abroad;
4/. an insanely obstructionist GOP policy towards climate to ensure items 1/., 2/. & 3/. are maintained.
Those who support Obama in 2012 will be supporting the continuation of that unspoken policy of climate brinkmanship and of its operational requirements.
Promoting an alternative candidate at the democratic primaries to challenge Obama’s inherited policy looks like one of very few options for real change in US conduct. Given that the policy of inaction is shared by GOP & Dem party authorities (with significant Dem dissent), such an intervention seems eminently sensible as a means of waking Americans to face their predicament and potentially, at best, replacing that policy with one of serious negotiation of the requisite global treaty and serious re-orientation of priorities at home.
With respect, clinging to Obama’s policy of inaction for fear of GOP inaction is hiding from reality – as in climate ostriches, not hawks.
If we can afford the policy of brinkmanship, of escalating global damages and commitment to greater damages, then we need to hear why this is so. If we cannot, then we need to support radical action to put an end to that policy.
Regards,
Lewis
Ronald Reagan redux on global warming – Reagan never said the word AIDS during his whole first term. Has climate change become the new AIDS word in government for this administration? Caretaker, seat warmer, afraid of confrontation, all seem apt to me. Shuffling the chairs on the Titanic.