Grabbing kittens – contemporary political crisis
Donald Trump’s presidential campaign has been hit with one crisis after another and somehow, until very now, each crisis has been belittled by the next one. However, after P-grabbing video emerged it was blatantly clear that he was in the wrong and any option of denial was taken off the table (video with Trump apologising down below).
Hostage video meets rally speech meets deflection
And while this has been a clear-cut case, politics is no stranger to more ambiguous incidents. What if more response options are available and hence more liberty to decide how to react to the accusations?
More denying, less apologising
As apologies in politics are nothing new, e.g. numerous apologies that went hand in hand with Bill Clinton’s term in the White House, so aren't the refusals to apologise, e.g. Romney for his 47% gaffe.
Two experimental studies have shown successful ways (meaning: maintaining votes) to deal with accusations. For example, Sigal and colleagues’ (1988) study, although old, is very pertinent to the present political affairs. According to them, when the end-goal is “more votes”, denial trumps apology; and the logic is simple: apology denotes guilt. Plus, newer study by Craig et al (2014), although concentrating on negative ads, also showed that, when politician is accused, best strategies are denial, counterattack, counter imaging, or justification, as all of them help to restore the vote share. Now, going back to Sofie’s blog post, it is clear that denial has a universal fit.
Furthermore, although pointing out possibilities for a politician to “phoenix” oneself out of a crisis with apologies (e.g. Reagan & Clinton), Benoit (2006) showed the potentiality of avoiding apology altogether, if one were to persuasively deny the allegations in the first place. For example, in case of George W. Bush and Iraq war, his denial of wrongdoing was actually accepted. However this acceptance came from his core supporters not by a larger majority. Therefore, in politics sentiment of the majority of the public should be considered when deciding whether apology is in order or not.
Bill Clinton's apology
Finally, Veil and colleagues (2011) have summarized multiple recommendations for crisis communication, but one of the suggestions especially caught my attention as being very applicable to politics – that is, embracing the ambiguity and leaving room for the adjustment. And apology, as mentioned before, unfortunately, annihilates that option.
I would argue that in politics, where everything boils down to securing votes and getting (re-)elected, apologies could end a career, while deflection and ambiguity could leave a possibility for a comeback. And, this, I believe, is where political world differs from the corporate one. While with organizations you can put the issue to sleep after an apology, in politics apology can always resurface and come back to haunt you. Also in politics, personality matters, and the cleaner your slate the better are the chances of getting elected or re-elected.
NB! After the most recent accusations Trump has resorted to one of the above-mentioned strategies –denial!
The phony story in the failing @nytimes is a TOTAL FABRICATION. Written by same people as last discredited story on women. WATCH!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 13, 2016
Dear readers, what do you think Trump’s campaign response should be to the new accusations? Would there be any use of apologies?
Karmen Kert, Master student in Political Communication at University of Amsterdam, and avid fanatic of US politics.
No comments:
Post a Comment