US President Donald Trump’s critics have consistently underestimated his political communication skills, perhaps because he is so different from the likes of former US presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. Roosevelt and Reagan, after all, were known as “great communicators.”
Although large segments of the US population hated them, Roosevelt and Reagan addressed the people as a whole and tried to appeal to the center. Trump, by contrast, has appealed primarily to the minority who elected him.
His inaugural address sounded like a campaign speech and after taking office, a series of false statements and provocative executive orders have undercut his credibility with the center, but reinforced it with his base.
Trump’s communication skills were honed in the world of reality TV, where outrageous and provocative statements entertain audiences and boost viewership. He used that approach during the Republican primary to dominate attention among a crowded field of 17 candidates.
By one estimate, Trump received the equivalent of US$2 billion of free TV advertising, swamping the US$100 million in paid advertising raised by Republican rival Jeb Bush.
After he won the Republican nomination, many expected Trump to follow the traditional path of moving to the center for the general election. Again, he defied expectations and focused a campaign on segments of the population that had lost jobs to global competition; and/or resented the cultural changes of the past few decades.
This populist appeal was effectively targeted and he won the Electoral College, despite losing the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes.
However, for 100,000 votes in three rust belt states, he would not be president.
Given this, many observers expected him to target his messaging at the political center after he took office. However, Trump again confounded the pundits by continuing to target his base voters. Some speculate that he is aiming to build a new populist party of working-class voters — former so-called Reagan Democrats — and Tea Party Republicans.
Trump also proved unconventional in his choice of communication instruments. New technologies open new opportunities. Roosevelt used carefully paced public “fireside chats” made possible by radio broadcasting. Reagan was a master of the scripted speech dramatized on TV. Reagan’s White House staff kept the administration’s message focused on the priority issue of the day or week. Trump used Twitter, in addition to his mastery of cable TV, to leap over the heads of staff and the press and drive the public agenda during the campaign.
To the surprise of many, Trump has continued the practice in the White House. The use of Twitter was not new — former US president Barack Obama had a well-staffed account — but Trump’s personal involvement raised questions of how to manage policy thunderbolts from the White House and express complex policy issues, such as nuclear weapons, in 140 characters.
As a device to communicate with his base and keep attention focused on himself, government by Twitter has allowed him to appeal over the heads of the US Congress and the press.
Political communication changes over time and there are many ways to communicate effectively. The ancient Greeks had schools of rhetoric to hone their skills for the assembly. Cicero made his mark in the Roman Senate after studying oratory.
Former US president Woodrow Wilson was not a gifted student as a child, but he succeeded in teaching himself oratory because he regarded it as essential for leadership. Former British prime minister Winston Churchill often attributed his success to his mastery of the English sentence. Civil rights advocate Martin Luther King Jr benefited from growing up in an African-American church tradition rich in the rhythms of the spoken word.
For some it comes easier than others. Former New York governor Mario Cuomo once compared former US president Bill Clinton with his wife, failed US presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton: “She is more a Methodist and he is more theatrical.”
However, oratory and rhetoric are not the only forms of effective political communication. Non-verbal signals are an important component as well. Some inspirational leaders were not great orators — witness Indian reformer Mahatma Gandhi. However, the symbolism of Gandhi’s simple peasant clothing and lifestyle spoke louder than words. If one compares those images with pictures of the young, insecure Gandhi dressed as a proper British lawyer, one can see how carefully he understood symbolic communication.
So does Trump, in his own way. Consider his campaign’s red baseball cap with the slogan “Make America great again,” as well as his fixation on branding when he was a businessman and his use of Twitter.
In addition to communicating with distant audiences by rhetoric and symbols, leaders need the ability to communicate one on one or in small groups. In some cases, that close communication is more important than rhetoric.
Organizational skill — the ability to attract and manage an effective Cabinet — is difficult to combine with government by Twitter. Former US president Harry Truman was a modest orator, but compensated for the lack of public rhetoric by attracting and ably managing a stellar set of advisers.
Setting the right example is another crucial form of communication for leaders. Anticipating a skeptical public reaction when Singapore raised the salaries of government officials in 2007, Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (李顯龍) announced that he would forgo the raise for himself.
In terms of symbols related to conflicts of interest, Trump has not yet mastered the art of political communication.
Thus far, Trump has proven a more effective political communicator than his critics expected, but whether he can succeed in the long term with his unconventional approach is one of the great questions facing his presidency.
Joseph Nye Jr, a former US assistant secretary of defense and chairman of the US National Intelligence Council, is a professor at Harvard University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations