They’re like cockroaches that pop up just when your kitchen is being inspected by the health department – former administration officials who write their memoirs. Sometimes, they actually have praise for the administration – thank god for the John Ashcrofts of the world! Most often, though, looking to find a place in history as far away from you as possible, they come to bury you, not to praise you – yes, I’m looking at you, Scott McLellan!
Fortunately, you are not defenseless. You have a press secretary. Not to mention the bully pulpit of the Presidency. And, a complicit right wing press. And, a compliant whatever’s left of the mainstream press. And, a largely marginalized alternative press. All you need to do is carefully calibrate your response, and, sooner or later, but probably sooner than later, whatever scurrilous allegations your disgruntled former staffer is making will be so much birdcage liner. If in doubt, the following algorithm lays out the talking points for you.
| 1. | A former member of the administration has just published his (because, let’s face it, it’s always a guy) memoirs. Is the book positive about the administration? | |
| YES | 2. | Praise the book as being an accurate reflection of the way the administration works. |
| NO | 3. | Is the press picking up on allegations of misfeasance, malfeasance or other not feasances made in the book? |
| NO | 4. | Ignore the book and continue business as usual. |
| YES | 5. | Dismiss the claims being made in the book as old news, allegations that the administration has already dealt with. |
| 6. | Is the author making the rounds of the talk shows, amplifying the allegations of mis, mal and other wrongdoing in the press? | |
| NO | GO TO 4 | |
| YES | 7. | Claim that the author was out of the loop and doesn’t know what he was talking about. |
| 8. | Is the press continuing coverage of the scurrilous allegations made in the book despite the fact that they are old news made by somebody who doesn’t know what he’s talking about? | |
| NO | GO TO 4 | |
| YES | 9. | Claim that the author/former administration official/turncoat is amplifying his allegations – which everybody knows are groundless – in order to sell more books. |
| 10. | Is the author continuing to get coverage in the press despite the fact that he is simply rehashing old news that he knows nothing about in order to sell more books? | |
| NO | GO TO 4 | |
| YES | 11. | Announce that the author is not the same person you worked with when he was in the administration, and suggest – subtly if the public seems sympathetic to him, directly if it does not – that he is mentally unstable. |
| 12. | Is the author getting more press coverage despite the fact that he is simply rehashing old news in order to sell more books and, in any case, he doesn’t have his facts straight because he has gone insane? | |
| NO | GO TO 4 | |
| YES | 13. | Change the subject. No matter how outrageous (and possibly even accurate) the allegations made in the book are, the news cycle is voracious, and the press will soon lose interest and move on to another subject. |
Notes
There was a time when the ruler had the power to shoot anybody who brought him bad news. In these days of celebrity journalists and the 24 hour news cycle, literally shooting the messenger can seem like bad taste. Some people also seem to think it is illegal.
What is indisputably a target of reigning monarchs is the reputation of the messenger. There are undoubtedly dissertations waiting to be written about the symbolic signification of the destruction of journalistic representations of?umm’something. (Don’t look at us – we barely graduated from high school!) For our purposes, it is simply worth noting that the Bush Administration’s Crisis Management Algorithm 2: Memoirs is a time-tested, highly effective method of dealing with the unfair criticisms that people who actually know you are likely to proffer when they leave your administration.
One must be careful to use the algorithm sparingly. During memoir season, there may be several candidates to whom the algorithm could be applied, but doing so might make its use too obvious. As much as you may want to lash out (in defense, of course) at all comers, it would be best to wait until the dust has cleared and apply the algorithm to the most egregiously negative memoirs. There is an algorithm for messenger shooting triage, but, unfortunately, it is currently classified.
Some may argue that “character assassination” (such a harsh term! – the government prefers “character redefinition”) is an unseemly activity for a democratic government to engage in. As always, we offer it with neither praise nor condemnation; we are just trying to explain how the government actually works.