A War Between Staff

Like everyone else, I am sick of these elections and just want them over. It's very hard to find something to write about that might be in any way useful to my primary intent: just get this beast over and done with. I have no interest in debating a set of political arguments that have become unmoored from anything approaching reason--I gave up writing about them a couple of months ago. I also have no interest in trying to ask the electorate to ask questions that go beyond the mere confirmation of their own prejudices or even pointing out my disgust with the politicians who find it rewarding to fan and ignorance.

Still, there is something to say. So let me launch into the nature of campaign staffs, which is something about which I have absolute first-hand knowledge.

I was assistant to the president of a major university system. That made me aide-de-camp, trouble-shooter, bottle washer, confidant, and booster all wrapped up into one. Think the staffs of Romney and Obama and you have my role. I was paid well, and I was good at it.  But also think that there was a complete breakdown of any distance between the staff and our employer.

If my boss got a bruise, his staff bled That's how close we got and also how close he wanted it. If he said something stupid, we were on instant damage control. Ditto if he said something honest that was likely to give advantage to his opponent. We staff sat around agonizing over every perceived slight, every opposing point, every slight advantage--they all took on earth-shattering importance and had to be neutralized. We were so deeply involved that sometimes even our boss became like the enemy when he said something stupid. In this, of course, we were not ranged against whatever opponent was on the horizon, but against the that opponent's staff who were doing the same thing.

Our sanity did not really return until we were off the rollercoaster of working for him. But I can say that it gave us perspective in hindsight. So I can say that for someone watching all this, the only counter to this sort of collective lunacy is to look at the bosses directly and not get sidetracked by the staffs.

So, Candidate Romney says he opposes birth control and choice--the staff will go into high alert and issue statements after that fact saying that of course he supports choice and contraception. Except that he doesn't. But no matter, the staff must follow the path of making the candidate electable and countering the opposition. They may not even like and respect him (that comes out in memoirs later on). But in the heat of the moment, and the rush to win, it sometimes becomes a matter of two accounts: what the candidate says and what his staff says as it cleans up the mess.

Hoe do I know this? I've been there. My president used to like making controversial statements. His staff ran around behind him trying to modulate or counter by "interpreting" his comments to create the image of the man we had been hired to promote. Sometimes we did this a bit hollowly since we knew where he stood, but we covered him and ran interference for him sometimes without knowing any alternative.

Don't get me wrong--staffs are wonderful. But when it comes to politics (university or national) my experience is that it is wisest to listen to what the man is actually saying and doing rather than relying on an overworked staff desperately hoping to get the candidate elected. They like their jobs too. .