PR legend Harold Burson wrote:
Would it have been possible for President Roosevelt to support the British war effort against Nazi Germany with the constant din of the media and polls overwhelmingly in favor of strict neutrality? Could President Nixon have opened the doors to a relationship with China if diplomacy had been conducted in a fishbowl?"
With increasing media coverage and exposure and the ability of citizens to involve themselves in media (bloggers), it is becoming more and more difficult for political leaders to take a stand against an onslaught of public voices.
This leadership issue is in full-swing in Connecticut where Senator Joe Lieberman is facing a difficult primary election. The former vice-presidential candidate supports the U.S.’s continued involvement in Iraq. His “stay the course” position is in stark opposition to his opponent in the primary, Ned Lamont.
As is often the case, those that position themselves farthest from the center tend to make the most noise. Lieberman, by supporting a policy of a Republican President, risks losing the Democrat's Senate seat. He has already lost the support of many left-wingers and has seen a large lead in the polls slowly dissipate as noted in the Washington Post.
Lieberman is standing by a position that he feels is right despite the costs. After four visits to Iraq in 17 months, Lieberman took his stand public in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal last fall. While far-left Democrats and liberal bloggers are mobilizing anti-war Democrats to support Lamont, former President Bill Clinton, a Democratic party darling, stands by Lieberman as Lieberman stands by the war. Loyalty to cause or person in a "flavor-of-the-month" society is a rare trait but necessary to lead.
“If you don’t stand for something, you fall for anything.”
.jpg)
Comment Preview