The Mea Culpa Bomb
On Morning Joe this morning, Bob Woodward and Pat Buchanan were discussing the “I screwed up” confession of Obama’s over the failed Daschle appointment. Woodward was pretty impressed by the newness of a confession of error from the top wheras Buchanan suggested Obama was taking the blame for something that actually wasn’t his fault, but Daschle’s that of the vetting team.
Anyhow, what interests me more is not so much whether admissions of fault are new — every naughty child learns that a hands-up acknowledgement of guilt can take the wind out of your opponent’s sails, so it’s not as if new political ground is being broken here even if it’s a change from the previous administration — but whether this was really the right time for it. Flushed with success and exercising poor judgement, the naughty child soon discovers that you can’t use the tactic again and again and again; Obama can only make so many admissions of fault before they lose their effect and he ends up looking as incompetent as if you’d pretended everything was fine all through like the previous reality-denying President.
Now, I can’t believe that Obama thinks he can go through his Presidency saying “screwed that up, will do better next time” every time something doesn’t go well, because he knows that the population expects less fallibility than might be logically achievable and even though “the buck stops here”, there’s not really any point saying “I screwed up” if it was really below your own radar. Unless, of course, he really did know about Daschle’s tax problem in advance and Obama, himself, decided it wasn’t a big enough deal to drop the nomination or at least prepare the way better. But even in that case, is it a big enough deal to drop the “Mea Culpa bomb”? Tactics like this should be hoarded for when you might really need them.
I note in passing that I am the first person on the googleable internet to say “Mea Culpa bomb”.
It struck me as a way to build support by demonstrating a clear contrast with the previous administration. I don’t think he intends to do it over and over again; it was politically useful to do it this time, so he did. Probably worked, too.
Of course, I’m more interested in hearing how he reacts when he does something actually WRONG as opposed to unpopular. Such as, for instance, engaging in political arm-twisting in order to micromanage the practices of the British court system.
Comment by Rojas — 2/6/2009 @ 12:19 pm
I don’t think that it was politically useful enough to use it now. Because, God knows, there’s probably going to come a time when he really needs it. Also, if this appointment sets some sort of standard for the severity of error for which the President goes on TV to say “I screwed up”, we’re probably going to be seeing a lot of him doing that very thing. Which will get old pretty quickly. Otherwise, he can just get asked “You admitted a screw-up over appointee tax problems, and this is a lot more important/much worse, why aren’t you admitting a screw-up now?”
Every slacker knows that one just has to pick a realistic level of incompetence for which one will admit fault. I fear that Obama is setting his too low.
Comment by Adam — 2/6/2009 @ 1:43 pm
I guess what I was trying to say was, his team deemed it best to use the bomb NOW, when the contrast with Bush is still fresh. My guess is that two years from now there won’t be a lot of milage to be gained from mere apology; the standards will have shifted.
Comment by Rojas — 2/6/2009 @ 2:49 pm
Only if Obama shifts them by achieving CHANGE NOW!
Comment by Adam — 2/6/2009 @ 3:30 pm