Why Scott McClellan Is Like Dilbert
Updated on 05/28/08, 5:40 p.m.
Scott McClellan, once the voice of the nation's executive branch and spokesman for the leader of the free world, is just another powerless Dilbert with a lousy manager. That, according to Politico's report on McClellan's new book, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception.
Most of us learn at a young age the rather pat phrase: "You're either part of the problem or part of the solution." But in a culture that has a fondness for gray areas and moral relativism, the phrase seems to have lost its applicability. In the workplace—and particularly in the case of McClellan, a former White House press secretary—we've come to prefer "pass the buck."
From Politico:
"I still like and admire President Bush," McClellan writes. "But he and his advisers confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candor and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war.... In this regard, he was terribly ill-served by his top advisers, especially those involved directly in national security."
Politico reports that McClellan "charges that Bush relied on 'propaganda' to sell the war." I can only assume that as Bush's mouthpiece, McClellan means that the president, in large part, relied on him to spread propaganda to sell the war. But company men who tout the company line are usually aware that it's a kind of spin. They consciously choose loyalty over perfect principle.
This is the lesson: When it comes to our employers—whether president or popcorn shop owner—we always have a choice. That's the beauty of business. If we don't like what we see, if we don't trust the name on our paycheck, we can leave. Immediately. Americans leave their jobs all the time—for reasons far less significant than being asked to spread war propaganda.
Politico reports that McClellan even passes the buck to the White House press corps, a group that has taken lots of flak for not being tough enough on the Bush administration. But coming from McClellan, it's a little like accusing your company's human resources department of being too easy to deceive: If they checked expense reports more carefully, you would never have made up those bogus business lunches. Alas, I fear that kind of attitude is far too common.
Tags: books | Scott McClellan
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (30) | Print
Reader Comments
When the Emperor Shoots the Messenger
When the Emperor has no clothes and he shoots his messengers, any messenger with the fraction of the brain-power of a flea keeps his/her thoughts to him/herself--if you value your head. If you've seen generals falling on their sword after speaking truth to power, continuing to deliver truth will only add your body to the list of the dead or missing. In the original story the child speaks and the truth cannot be denied. In this case of course in this case, although the child has spoken that the "Emperor has no clothes." Sycophants still cannot believe the sight they see--therefore, the child must be blind! After all who is next on the list to be shot.
You get what you deserve
Don't understand all of the handwringing about Bush and his propaganda. It was obvious that Bush was gonna jump into Iraq no matter what. It was even more obvious what a mess it was just a few months in.
What did Americans do? They re-elected the guy. Now everyone's crying like Hillary that they were misled. Balderdash! The facts were there in plain sight, if you just paid attention.
You get the government that you deserve.
So McClellan wanted to keep his job and didn't have the balls to resign. So what? CBS, NBC and ABC didn't have the guts to bust Bush on Iraq for the same reason: they wanted to keep their gig, or "access," as Katie Couric puts it. ("So, Condi, just how hard is it to get a date?" That's what passed for interviews at CBS.)
The Devil Made Him Do It
Scott's a passive-aggressive classic. Happy camper, company man as long as he's part of the "in" crowd. Even if it was sub-conscious he knew what he was doing. Someone (probably a publisher) talked him into shoveling the dirt. (We were supposed to believe him then - AND we're supposed to believe him now? ) How do you atone for lying to the world? Call the kettle black. Greed always wins out.
People have been leaking - or outright telling - the dirt on the Bush administration for years. Think about the list of them! Did any of the networks or papers ever do responsible in-depth investigations? Or even ask tough questions? No. Why? As Katie Couric said this morning, (paraphrase) when we said something the Administration didn't like they threatened to cut us out of the information loop. (Gee, did they have a whip too?)
Where was the press when Newsweek published about a 5 page story back in early 2003 showing sattelite and ground pictures of canvas-sided 18 wheelers trucking what they suggested were Bio-Terrorism weapons or WsOMD out of Iraq! (to Iran) And how could Colin Powell stand in front of the UN with almost the same sattelite pictures and say Iraq "had" WsOMD? Where were the questions then?
The American people aren't as dumb as the press thinks and someday with the power of the internet we'll start wagging the dog.
advertisement
