Congressional Body Language: Sincere. Open. Powerless.
A lesson in body language: The man in the beige sport coat takes orders from the man in the dark suit. Greg Walden is trying to be the man in the beige sport coat.
First a quick review of what the 2016 Campaign taught us about presidential body language.
Trump had a message to project. He wanted to look like a CEO who would not be pushed around. Hillary had a message to project: she was open and had nothing to hide. Each dressed the part.
 |
| Look powerful |
 |
| Look open, nothing to hide |
Trump dressed in classic power clothes: dark blue suit, white shirt, sincere tie. It is the classic IBM look and the look of top management. Trump spoke from behind a lectern, looking down at the audience, projecting authority. Hillary always spoke with a hand mike without lectern, as in the photo. She tried to show she was open and accessible. Each had a message. Donald Trump had a problem sounding "presidential", but he always looked presidential. Hillary was endlessly accused of hiding something, but she did her best to look like she was an open book.
Now lets look at the body language of Greg Walden, a Republican congressman in a traditional safe-seat rural Mountain West district, Oregon's 2nd. Let me remind out of state readers that this is the district that makes up central and eastern Oregon, the mostly dry Mountain West part of Oregon, the part that is more like Idaho and Wyoming than it is like Portland-bicycles-latte-coastal-liberal-vegan Democratic-Oregon. The 2nd District votes Republican.
 |
| Congressional Leader |
I will note the obvious, that Greg Walden has a congressman's wardrobe. In Washington, DC Greg Walden dresses like a powerful congressman in Republican leadership. Here he is, Chair of the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, suited up, powerful, and responsible. Take a few seconds to absorb the photo.
In Oregon in the District he dresses down. He sometimes wears a sports coat, usually with an open collar. Sometimes he just wears a sport shirt. His color choices are often the opposite of power colors: beige and green.
Greg Walden is very skilled and political observers can learn from him.
Take a moment to look closely at this second photo, from a Town Hall given in Boardman, Oregon at a visitor center for the county and the Columbia River port of Morrow. (It is called the Sage Center. No relation. Readers are cautioned not to find hidden meaning and un-subtle subtext. Sometimes a coincidence is just a coincidence.)
Take a moment to look closely at this second photo, from a Town Hall given in Boardman, Oregon at a visitor center for the county and the Columbia River port of Morrow. (It is called the Sage Center. No relation. Readers are cautioned not to find hidden meaning and un-subtle subtext. Sometimes a coincidence is just a coincidence.)
He is dressed and standing in the classic position of openness and vulnerability, feet apart, jacket unbuttoned, torso partially exposed, hitting every mark:
 |
| Don't blame me. I am open and doing my best to listen. |
1. American flag in background, present but unspoken. (Patriotic, but not cheap shot flagrant.)
2. Having a lectern but intentionally standing beside it. (Open and vulnerable.)
3. Hand microphone. (Free to move, free to interact with the crowd.)
4. Light colored sport coat, a non-power color. (Dressy enough for rural Oregon, but the opposite of a power suit. He projects earnestness, and willingness to listen, not authority.)
5. Checkered unbuttoned shirt, no tie. (Casual and at ease. He is just another rural Oregonian, not putting on airs, no different from anyone standing in line at the pharmacy after a day as an assistant manager somewhere.)
6. Brown pants and shoes. (Casual and at ease.)
7. One hand in pocket. (It could be shyness but it also projects being dis-armed and un-available for defense or even expression. Even though he is getting hostile questions, his hand is not in a defensive position; indeed it is "holstered" inside his pants pocket.)
I know from experience that some readers will think I am reading too much into this. (Gosh sakes, some will think. He had to wear something so don't overthink this. Sometimes it is a coincidence, just like the SAGE sign.)
It is entirely likely that Walden did not think hard and strategically about what to wear. He is experienced and may have done the right thing naturally and thoughtlessly. He wanted to look like a regular guy, modest and unassuming. He has years of experience and good instincts: brown pants and shoes, checkered shirt, casual tan sport coat. He stood where he felt appropriate to stand, out in front, open and vulnerable to the hostile questions coming his way. Walden is good at this.
It is entirely likely that Walden did not think hard and strategically about what to wear. He is experienced and may have done the right thing naturally and thoughtlessly. He wanted to look like a regular guy, modest and unassuming. He has years of experience and good instincts: brown pants and shoes, checkered shirt, casual tan sport coat. He stood where he felt appropriate to stand, out in front, open and vulnerable to the hostile questions coming his way. Walden is good at this.
Whether though careful deliberation or learned experience Greg Walden is working to confound the strongest case that can be made for his electoral defeat, that he was the powerful swamp dweller who made a bad situation worse. It is very clever of him.
He cannot help the upcoming disaster he will help lead. But he can avoid being blamed for it.
Look at the two photos of Greg Walden, going back and forth. The top photo, Congressional Leader, is a man who was the "attack dog" against Obamacare and is now responsible for its replacement. Now look at the man in the brown pants and tan sport coat above, or below. He isn't responsible for anything, except listening and hearing you out.
He cannot help the upcoming disaster he will help lead. But he can avoid being blamed for it.
Look at the two photos of Greg Walden, going back and forth. The top photo, Congressional Leader, is a man who was the "attack dog" against Obamacare and is now responsible for its replacement. Now look at the man in the brown pants and tan sport coat above, or below. He isn't responsible for anything, except listening and hearing you out.
Would you consider the matter settled? No. You would demand to speak to his manager. Who would come out of his office, possibly with the power to re-interpret the policy? The man in the suit.
You know it instinctively: The man in the beige sport coat takes orders from the man in the suit.
A Democrat who runs against Greg Walden needs to run against the man in the suit. The Washington version of Waldon is responsible for giving Americans "something terrific." As this blog wrote yesterday, Americans are virtually certain to be unhappy with the Obamacare replacement. It cannot be both comprehensive and inexpensive. If the services available cover lots of people there there will be examples of "the undeserving" getting help. If services are carefully allocated there will be paperwork and bureaucracy. If services are rationed there will be people who resent not qualifying, If services are freely available there will be horror stories of abuse.
 |
| This guy is politically vulnerable |
Count on there being critics. The GOP taught us to be skeptical of government programs, then angry about them. We learned that lesson.
Who is to blame for the disaster? The man in the suit, the point man for having helped destroy Obamacare and replacing it with Trump's impossible standard of simple, inexpensive, and very good. Nothing Trump has done in the past two years makes it appear likely that Trump will accept the blame himself. He will blame Congress and there is a Republican majority there.
So Greg Walden is hiding in disguise in the district. Some critics may think to criticize his weakness, implying he is the Barney Fife weakling. They may think to criticize him as a good hearted nobody, but they would be falling for the disguise. Calling Waldon weak does not hurt Walden. It helps him. It gets him off the hook. He wants to be thought helpless and blameless; otherwise, he would not come to Oregon dressed like an assistant manager.
The strongest case against Greg Walden is that he is very powerful, the man in the suit, the man with the big job he wanted where he is doomed to disappoint. The populist opposition to Walden channels public disappointment, then anger, at the man who promised we would be thrilled. It would be the revolt of the assistant managers against the powerful people who over-promised and under-delivered.
Democrats need to remember who they are and who they are fighting for. They are the party that represents frustrated assistant managers and the people they supervise. Democrats fighting alongside the assistant managers against the man in the corner office who failed at his job.
1 comment:
Dreary little man.
Post a Comment