Bully Pulpit Bull

Ezra Klein argues in a New Yorker piece that the President's bully pulpit isn't the great tool it used to be in the age of assumed GOP Senate filibusters (and may actually hurt a President).

The annual State of the Union address offers the clearest example of the misconception. The best speechwriters are put on the task. The biggest policy announcements are saved for it. The speech is carried on all the major networks, and Americans have traditionally considered watching it to be something of a civic duty. And yet Gallup, after reviewing polls dating back to 1978, concluded that “these speeches rarely affect a president’s public standing in a meaningful way, despite the amount of attention they receive.” Obama’s 2012 address fit the pattern. His approval rating was forty-six per cent on the day of the speech, and forty-seven per cent a week later.

Presidents have plenty of pollsters on staff, and they give many speeches in the course of a year. So how do they so systematically overestimate the importance of those speeches? Edwards believes that by the time Presidents reach the White House their careers have taught them that they can persuade anyone of anything. “Think about how these guys become President,” he says. “The normal way is talking for two years. That’s all you do, and somehow you win. You must be a really persuasive fellow.”

But being President isn’t the same as running for President. When you’re running for President, giving a good speech helps you achieve your goals. When you are President, giving a good speech can prevent you from achieving them. 

It seems counter-intuitive, but Klein goes on to argue that an impassioned speech is red meat to the opposition in either party, and presents an immediate avenue for clashing with the White House.  Lawmakers make news when they conflict with the President, that's Village Sunday Talk Show 101 right there.  It also serves as the basis of talking points that the opposition can use to scuttle or confuse the issue, or become a rallying point.

Klein's argument is far more an indictment of our current incestuous Washington/The Village arrangement more than anything else.  The press immediately treats any SOTU-level speech as insincere blather, political posturing and worthless rhetoric.  No wonder then than this President's speeches are boiled down to "LOL TELEPROMPTER" all the time by his opponents.

The bully pulpit is bemoaned in the press as useless by the cynical Villagers who helped make it so.  Shocking, I know...