White House Chronicle

News Analysis With a Sense of Humor

Washington’s New Dance Craze — the Perplexity Quickstep

by Leave a Comment

After more than six months of vilifying, ridiculing and laughing out loud at President Trump, Washington is getting down to realizing that he is the president — and he will not be gone, by some miracle, in the morning.

Ergo it is time for companies, lobbyists and Congress to find a mechanism to work with Trump or around him. It might be described as a dance: the perplexity quickstep. Fleet feet are essential.

Business is treading with increasing alarm and tentativeness. Lobbyists are seeking White House sources for steps guidance. And Congress is tripping over new choreography.

A lot of business leaders thought that Trump, himself a businessman, would see government from the Oval Office as though he were still sitting in the corner office. They believed he would seek the best path forward, going for the main chance and strategizing how to get there. Instead, the business community — from the chairmen of some of the largest companies, with whom I have spoken, to those of small- and medium-size companies — is flummoxed, reviling Trump in private and seeking advice from a variety of Washington gurus on what to do going forward.

Business people, who think they understand cause and effect, cannot find a pattern that suggests the president has any understanding of that relationship. Business hankers for certainty, Trump for adulation. Business worries about the bottom line, Trump about the television commentariat. Business people who want to get a point of view across to the president are trying to get on television — particularly on the morning shows on Fox.

The trade associations, among the most effective lobbies in Washington, are working under the old rules while trying to learn the new dance steps. So they continue to “applaud” Trump appointments and to “congratulate” administration policy. Business and its lobbyists truly hope for lower corporate taxes and for loosening of regulations but they worry about the future of trade and trade agreements — and the concept that America can pull back all its overseas commitments. “America First” is a harbinger of bad things to come for global companies.

Many CEOs, including Elon Musk of Tesla, Tim Cook of Apple and some other bold Silicon Valley C-suiters, have criticized Trump and quit his advisory committees. This has earned them public plaudits, but in doing so they have reduced their ability to affect things. Many others ask, “With Trump, isn’t it better to be on the inside, as close to the president as possible?” Trump is said to believe the last person with whom he spoke.

In Washington’s new dance, the hope is that when the music stops, you are the one standing next to him. You cannot do this if you have taken off to California in high dudgeon.

Many corporations are in the awkward position of needing good relationships with the White House because they are involved in government contracting — and most large corporations are, even as they like to denounce government. Less government, more contracts is the dichotomy of the business-government relationship.

So many corporations with interests in Washington are learning the perplexity quickstep: two quick steps to the right, two quick steps to the left, and circle to the rear. Dance near Trump and he might heap praise on you. Dance far from him and he might come after you for manufacturing overseas. Like his own party and the press, business waits for the new choreography which often arrives by Twitter in the early morning.

This was a week to marvel at the perplexity quickstep: Trump decided on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, or DACA, putting the fate of nearly 800,000 young undocumented immigrants in lawmakers’ hands before undermining the whole effort by tweeting that if Congress did not act in six months, he would insert himself back into the process. Then he danced the GOP right off the floor and cut a deal with the House and Senate Democratic leaders, Nancy Pelosi of California and Chuck Schumer of New York. Dizzying.

 

Photo: President Donald J. Trump, First Lady Melania Trump, Vice President Michael R. Pence, and Second Lady Karen Pence, dance with service members at the Salute to Our Armed Services Ball at the National Building Museum, Washington, D.C., Jan. 20, 2017. The event, one of three official balls held in celebration of the 58th Presidential Inauguration, paid tribute to members of all branches of the armed forces of the United States, as well as first responders and emergency personnel. (DoD photo by U.S. Army Sgt. Kalie Jones)

Getting a Seat at the Table

by 3 Comments

Think of this as a primer for all of those, like the sufferers of the awful disease Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, who need to be heard in Washington and aren't. Silence has a price.
 
There are two branches of lobbying in Washington. The first is big lobbying, with big money making big campaign contributions. The second is everyday lobbying, which is quietly effective, scarcely organized and part of the fabric of decision-making. Call it "informational lobbying."
 
Congress cannot expected to be knowledgeable about a myriad of issues, and this is where the lobbyists perform their often more innocent function. Simply, they know stuff. Their advice isn't always objective, but it's informed.
 
Certainly, Congress has the best research available through the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress and all the executive branch agencies. But it's a lot easier to call a friend, where a question can be asked and answered in the vernacular: “Joe, what's the story on the helium shortage?” It can be argued that, at this level, lobbying is not suspect but efficient.
 
Proximity is a force in Washington, familiarity a lever. There are no fingerprints; it's how the system works. A chance meeting in a restaurant can change the course of policy; influence a congressional opinion about something obscure but important, like the Endangered Species  Act, which is now receiving attention on its 40th anniversary.
 
The indictment of this informal lobbying regime is not that it exists and works, but that if you aren't at the table, you won't be heard. Woe betide those who don't have a lobbying operation, however modest, in Washington.
 
The lobby-less must suffer in obscurity: no lobby means no input. No conversation after church or at a kid's soccer game means no information is spreading about actions and decisions that will have impact down the line.
Make no mistake, proximity means a lot in the informing of government. A few casual words will often trump a great academic study.
 
For the past several years, I've taken a keen interest in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), also known as Myalgic Encephalomyelitis. It's a disease associated with the suppression, for reasons unknown, of the immune system. To get it is to contract a life sentence of daily suffering, often so severe that patients can be bedridden for years. They think of themselves as “the damned.”
 
This community has issues with the federal government; specifically with the Department of Health and Human Services, which has oversight of the National Institutes of the Health. Yet the advocates for CFS — many of them superbly articulate – aren't heard in Washington.
 
This is very clear, at the moment, when the department, acting through the NIH, has signed a contract with the Institute of Medicine to, according to NIH, to develop “clinical diagnostic criteria” for CFS.
 
This has so enraged the top tier of 35 doctors and researchers in the field that they — risking good relations and future research funding — have written to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius, imploring her to halt this folly. The Institute of Medicine doesn't have expertise in this field, according to the CFS doctors.
 
Most CFS specialists agree that an effective definition of the disease, known as the Canadian Consensus Criteria, is working fine and should be retained. Confusion and expense from Washington aren't needed. A wrong definition can be destructive to research, treatment and patient well-being. It will have consequences.
 
But the protests may have come too late, as knowledge of what the NIH was up to came too late.
 
To me, this bureaucratic shuffle by HHS is an example of the dangers of not having a presence in Washington. Government responds to pressure. No presence, no pressure, no result — or worse, a bad result.
 
You don't need huge money to lobby. Effective lobbying is often a case of simply being there and being known to be there: walking the halls of Congress catches the attention not only of Congress, but also wayward federal departments and the media. — For the Hearst-New York Times Syndicate

What Ails the Press? It Ails Itself

by 2 Comments

It was Thomas Carlyle who told us that Edmund Burke, in a parliamentary debate in 1787 on the opening of press coverage of the House of Commons, declared, “there were Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters' Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important far than they all.”

In the context of Parliament, the other three estates would have been the Lords Spiritual, the Lords Temporal and the Commons.

Burke's phrase stuck. More than two centuries later, the Fourth Estate is preserved, but is it powerful?

Here in Washington, it is losing respect rapidly. Today Burke, who was praising the independence of the reporters in ushering over two centuries of media standing up to authority, might wonder if he had overstated their zeal. Three and a Half Estates he might have decided.

The crisis in the media, as some of us believe, is not in the decline of newspapers, the shrinking of viewership for traditional television news, or the growth of partisan cable news, but rather in two other unrelated but dangerously coincidental trends.

The first of these is that the establishment in Washington now believes it doesn't need the media in the way that the media was believed to be needed traditionally. No longer do those hoping to influence Congress begin by selling their point of view to the media by lunching reporters, persuading editorial boards and courting columnists. Instead lobbyists go straight to Congress, where the game is to buy the votes they need with campaign contributions. Who needs the media to stir up popular support when the deed can be done with silver?

Gerald Cassidy, maybe the most successful K Street lobbyist of them all, lamented this change to me at lunch about 10 years ago. It has simply gotten worse.

Cassidy worried about the lack of public support for major legislation passed under lobby pressure. He also lamented how little time a lobbyist got with a member — how little time to dwell on the merits of a course of action.

Cassidy became a very wealthy man lobbying, but he yearned for a fair fight. The old-fashioned way, if you will.

This new state of affairs can be felt in the decline of interest in the general media by public relations firms who used to court every reporter in Washington. Now they “counsel” their clients; offer “strategic planning” and — oddly, as they take little notice of the media — a strange hybrid called “media training.” What media? Their other big new product is to keep reporters away from influential people: the people reporters need to talk to.

In case you think this is peculiarly a Washington phenomenon, it is not. At a recent meeting of the Association of European journalists in Maastricht, the Netherlands, speaker after speaker from country after country complained about those who allegedly are paid to facilitate press access in business and in government and instead wall off their masters.

The second downward trend is a pervasive pusillanimity that has gripped the media in the last several years. We allow ourselves to be segregated, corralled and de facto licensed.

At the White House, the press briefings are like feeding time for the dolphins at Sea World. We, the correspondents, sit around waiting for the keeper, press secretary Jay Carney, to bring in the dead fish. He throws most of it to the network correspondents, sitting grandly in the first two rows where they engage him in long conversations. Finally, Carney tosses some squid to the print reporters in the back of the room and an occasional minnow to the foreign press.

The problem is not that Carney does that but that we take it.

Likewise we can't walk without an escort to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, next to the White House, as we used to and a minder sits in on our interviews. And we take it.

The press conferences are rigged. Regular correspondents don't get to ask questions, just a predictable few — yes, those with the fishy breath from the front row.

Some old timers spoke up and lambasted the press at a meeting in Washington this week. Former Washington Post reporter and Pulitzer Prize winner Haynes Johnson said, “It's all very stale, very structured, very pale.” Sid Davis, a former NBC bureau chief, said the press conferences look as though the correspondents are watching a funeral service.

And longtime NBC and ABC correspondent Sander Vanocur said, “You want to know what's wrong with the press? The press is what's wrong with the press.” — For the Hearst-New York Times Syndicate