By Nick Bond
Call me a cynic, but it seems to me that for all the talk of the end of politics as usual, for all the blustering about end of corruption as we’ve seen it, and all the talk about the end of spin as we know it; we-the American people-have witnessed the greatest spin job since McKinley as the Obama administration has begun the period referred to by some as the “100-day sprint.”
What makes it even more interesting, however, is that he did so using the most innovative spin technique yet: he told the truth.
Despite a two-month span (beginning with the administration’s transition into the White House) filled with pay-to-play and I-don’t-want-to-pay-my-taxes controversies on the road to confirmation hearings, the administration has come out relatively unscathed because of their leader’s willingness to admit to any misstep he makes. From Reverend Wright to the Richardson and Daschle nominations, President Obama’s use of stark honesty has served his team well, even when they failed him, especially in their latest blunder, their sub-par vetting of Secretary of Health and Human Services nominee Tom Daschle, who withdrew on Wednesday amid controversy over $100,000 in unpaid back-taxes.
Regarding the situation, President Obama turned the spin jets on high in an interview with NBC News on Tuesday. In the interview, the president made what seemed to be a move towards contrition, but upon further examination looks to be simply just a new weapon in the spin arsenal: the honest apology.
“I’ve got to own up to my mistake, which is that ultimately it’s important for this administration to send a message that there aren’t two sets of rules: one for prominent people and one for ordinary folks who have to pay their taxes,” said President Obama. He continued, saying, “So, I’m frustrated with myself, with our team, but ultimately my job is to get this thing back on track because what we need to focus on is a deteriorating economy and getting people back to work.” Although this may seem like a genuine statement by the president, it still poses an interesting two-pronged ethical dilemma as the administration moves forward.
Firstly, the second half of the statement hinders the notion of this being an honest apology. If this were to be a truly honest apology, why would the president even include his agenda in the statement? Now, some may say that Daschle’s role was crucial in the revitalization of the economy because of his potential work in the national healthcare system, and as such, such a statement was pertinent, but it seems a little too convenient of a reason to include such statements. Such a statement’s validity is questionable at best.
Secondly, and most importantly, how many times can he apologize for such egregious mistakes before the sentiment wears thin? Going to the apology-well too often will eventually poison it, something the administration cannot afford if it truly hopes to change “politics as usual” during its time in office. But, because of what has happened so far, the question still remains: Does it really want to?
Nick Bond is a senior political science student and managing editor of The Chronicle. You may e-mail him at [email protected].