A President of All the People

In the grand scheme of things, and particularly in a critical election year, the issue of presidential audiences is probably not of the greatest importance. Except that where and to whom a president speaks tells us a lot about how he views his relationship to the people he is oath-bound to serve. Before we see the last of the incumbent president, I hope someone takes the trouble to review all the public speeches the president, and for that matter the vice-president, and for that matter the entire cabinet, have given and the nature of the audiences to whom they spoke. The point is simple: this administration's officials from the top down do not speak to general audiences representing a cross-section of the American people.

This Bush administration has systematically, and cynically, chosen to speak only to audiences whose acceptance and acceptability are guaranteed. Without any research whatsoever, and based only on observation of the staged backdrops to presidential and other speeches, I am willing to wager that George W. Bush and virtually his entire cabinet have never, during this entire administration, spoken in a forum whose doors were open to all.

Think back. Can you remember a presidential speech where the audience was not hand-picked? My guess is this paranoid manipulation and hand-selection of favorable audiences dates to the second Nixon administration, where the president became so unpopular he could not appear before ordinary Americans. This, of course, was also the period that gave rise to the Cheney-Rumsfeld, Addington-Yoo, blue state-red state carving up of America into us versus them and the anti-Constitutional "unitary executive" imperial consolidation of power.

If you are out to set up an imperial presidency and an imperial foreign policy, you are probably well advised to speak only to audiences of carefully selected robotic ditto-heads, those who surrendered objectivity, critical judgment, and reflective thought a long time ago and who will chant "stay the course" and "support the president" every time stage manager Rove flashes the cue. But if you still believe, as I do, that we live under a Constitutional government where are leaders are elected to serve all the people under a system of checks and balances and are to be held accountable in every regard to the people they serve, then we should demand leaders with the courage to face all their constituents on all occasions and address all relevant issues of the day.

By the way, I also don't recall even one press story in the past seven years calling into question this undemocratic practice of imperial audience staging.

Comments

[nopartygal]

Gary Hart - PART 1

"But if you still believe, as I do, that we live under a Constitutional government where are (our) leaders are elected to serve all the people under a system of checks and balances and are to be held accountable in every regard to the people they serve..."

Huh? And when was the last time that actually happened in real life in these here United States? Either you need to adjust the tense you are writing in, or you are living in a fairytale if you think that is actually true today... In other words: You haven't been paying attention.

a. We no longer live under a "Constitutional government". Granted, some of us would like to - the ones that actually realize we aren't anymore - but, given the laissez-faire, "as long as I don't have to miss an episode of CSI" attitude of the vast majority of the American public, that doesn't look like something I would volunteer to hold my breath for right now...

b. Our so-called current leaders were not "elected", they hijacked their way into power - both times. If you don't know this already, I recommend you take a peak at some old news tapings of the 2000 and 2004 elections. Very likely to be repeated again in

[flatus]

Wolverines!

[JulieSA]

"...I am willing to wager that George W. Bush and virtually his entire cabinet have never, during this entire administration, spoken in a forum whose doors were open to all."

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I saw the president speak at an event at a National Historical Park in Aug. 2001, and it was open to anyone who was a member of the Friends group of this particular park, plus local dignitaries. There are thousands of people in this group, and I'm pretty sure they're not all Republicans. The only screening I went through was for security (ID check, metal detector, bag search), and as you know, security is very tight for any presidential appearance.

I had never made a political donation before that, and in Texas, you don't register for a party, so there was no way for them to know what my political views were. All they knew about me was that I was a Park supporter.

Mr. Hart, I think you're exaggerating.

[cruisepuppy7452a]

Staged press conferences are like bad sitcoms. You know its staged, they know its staged, and they hope they will fool a viewer who is so desperate for entertainment, to think this is real. Professionals know thier material off the cuff, can speak off the cuff, think outside of the box, and get the attention of the people, all of them, without having to rely on staged audiences. They know who thier public is, what thier needs are, listen to them, and should be able to take any subject, and sell it to any group.
When I see Bush with his staged press conferences, I seriously wonder how dumb is he to assume the public isn't on to him? The blind faith the public puts into him is scary. Why not test him and throw him a question he has no cue cards for, see how supportive of you all he is then.
I seriously am waiting for him to come out in an Uncle Sam outfit, complete with hat and cain, tapdancing to I am a Yankee Doodle Dandy. Its so pathetically obvious to me how he has played on the blind faith, trust. I want to tell them to wake up and smell the coffee.

[Wasp35]

"This Bush administration has systematically, and cynically, chosen to speak only to audiences whose acceptance and acceptability are guaranteed."

Unlike Hillary Clinton, who invites anyone to a town hall meeting, but only answers questions prepared by her staff and asked by minions planted in the audience.

[CAPTAINSKIPPY]

At the conclusion of his term, let's deport gWB and any remaining supporters to Paraguay, or any country - Cuba? - willing to house them. If he only wants a captive audience, let's help him achieve his dream and give him what he asks for. Perhaps prison would also work?

[nellie]

At this point, I'd settle for a president of ANY of the people. This one seems to care about none of us—except the "have mores." These staged appearances are for cover only—when voting machines are rigged and voters are suppressed—a manufactured popularity to quell protests about election fraud. If people in this crowd think they're being represented by this administration, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell.

[FirstForty]

Hello....h­ello..hell­o... where you have been for 7 years?

This has been the case since the onset of Bush the Second. Have you ever seen him when the military is not standing behind him? I wonder what they were really thinking as they stand there as props.

This is similar to that leaders of the banana republics do and what former leaders of the Soviet Union did. The only difference is that Bush does not drape himself in medals...except in his mind.

If you really put the Bush government on a scale of total freedom and imperial dictatorship...we are pretty close to the latter. Still, few people see it as a problem. We had better wake up soon.

[druidlady42]

It is quite interesting that many of Bush's major policy speeches in the past seven years are at gatherings of the AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE and the HERITAGE FOUNDATION. This is more than a coincidence! I urge those who doubt the "staging" of Bush's speeches before unanimousl­y-supporti­ve crowds to simply go to the websites of these organizations, explore their boards of directors, fellows, policy positions, pervasive policy initiatives, and--yes--­employment criteria. Very revealing about WHO is really driving our domestic and foreign policies. All "think tanks" are not equal!

Pay little attention to Bush's PUBLIC appearances. Instead, listen very closely to what he says before audiences of these two groups!

[kellygrrrl]

The Dem candidates have at least had the balls to perform in debates moderated by the Neo-Con Media puppets, Tim Russert, et al.
I'd like to see the Repug candidates stand up there in a debate moderated by Keith O and Bill Maher.

[massimo1]

I think when the majority of citizens see that the president has 29% approval (including lack of approval from members of his own party), they sit back and let that fly over their heads. What they don't either realize or admit is that is very clearly saying the president is not supported, rather is opposed, by a huge majority of American citizens. That, except by legal authority, the president is accepted by practically nobody. Yet, even with such low support, this president acts like he should not be doing what the vast majority of the people ask of him (i.e., leave Iraq), which is essentially why we have a president, to respond to the needs and demands of the citizenry as well as the protection of the country (which he has caused to be more endangered than anyone could have imagined). Sure, anyone will agree sometimes what's good for the country is at odds with what citizens want. But, in a case where the majority is so vast, his support and credibility is so little, and he has so demonstrably endangered our rights, our economy, our national defense, our security, and our international standings, with a vast fabric of lies, deceptions, half-truths, regressive policies, lack of oversight, disregard for laws, etc., etc., etc., it makes no sense at all the he is permitted to continue as chief executive. Or it would make no sense if the citizens weren't dozing sheep.

[OETKB]

Our problem has always been dividing our population into constituencies with very specific needs and ignore whether it will interfere with other people's lives. We do not have a unified view of collective survival. This individualism is an ideological approach that supports only people with resources and accidents of birth. If we do not value the potential of all in this county or their families we will continue the divide.

This is why Mr. Bush can get away with audience filtering. Each group sits with their own needs and could care less about others in their community. They assuage their guilt with charity but have not evolved in their thinking to see that their fellow human beings are the best investment for themselves. Until we can answer the question on solutions of other peoples' problems: "What's in it for me or my family?" by an emphatic PLENTY, not much will happen.

We have not fully realized our survival advantage and that is society in all its parts is a necessity. There has to be a marriage between individual and civil rights or we will continue to plod along as we have. Those who sink into these ideologies are bent on destroying government since they are unwilling to accept thoughtful compromise. They do this by bringing corruption, secrecy, and confrontation and when it falls apart, announce that government is bad(even though they were the ones who are responsible).

[TrickleUp]

i dont care about staging. I WANT LIE DETECTOR TESTS AND REMOVAL OF TRAITORS AND CHARLATANS.

[army193]

Bush has done this for over 6 years. I remember one day after September 11 he had me even when I did not vote for him. Just one day from over 6 years. It is sad that he will go down in history as the WORST PRESIDENT in my life time......1949 was my begging.

[erose001]

Just like we heard about Zacharias Moussaoui and Colleen Rowley before everyone else, the Northern Plains does have on record quite the to-do during a Bush visit to Fargo where those perceived to be non "ditto-heads" were blocked from entering a *ticketed* event to which they had tickets. Indeed, they were progressive pals and on serious recon, but we North Dakotans don't like fusses and they were not there to do anything but listen. However, their treatment by the goon squad DID get a LOT of press attention, even back in New York with Amy Goodman.

It just goes to show that if you pay close attention, a real news story may actually slip through the cracks in your local news.

As for this despicable practice of the Bush administration, it seems perfectly in character with a character who will not speak with foreign leaders unless he can consider him or her an honorary member of the Bush family. Invade their country? Sure. Actually SPEAK TO THEM. Not on your life. And of course, the Rove raison d'etre is a combination of backstabbing and manufacturing consent, which is a little difficult if Code Pink or Iraq Veterans for Peace are around. And if one considers the Queen Mother's comments after Katrina, and the King Father's intemperate habit of calling cities by derogatory names based on protestors (Portland, for example, was "Little Beirut"), the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Even the whole nickname thing is about marginalizing others to make himeself look better, so some of this can probably be chalked up to the - to use Gary's word - imperial chip on the shoulder and Caucasian sense of elitist entitlement. (Caucausians are the best at everything! ***She says with a grimace*** Using our intelligence to build guns instead of homes, invading, conquering, privatizing infrastructure, you name it and we're your people. Not that humans aren't humans but show me another group of people as ruthless as us Caucasians, who are especially good at kingmaking and accepting the consequent feudal life.)