« Why we will not see convergence | Main | Does the Sugar Quota make you Fat? »
Strategies of silence and retreat
For a political leader, not appearing in public can mean:
1. You hate attention. You are a recluse, like Thomas Pynchon or J.D. Salinger.
2. You are countersignalling. Your political position (or health) is so secure that you don't need to show your face. Was Reagan at times an example?
3. Sheer random noise. Maybe you are playing chess and haven't given it much thought.
4. You are dead or dying.
5. Someone else is in charge, and they have yet to figure out the correct message. Or groups of agents are fighting for control and no one is staging the appearances one way or the other.
6. No one is in charge, and everyone is afraid to appear to be in charge, for fear that the sick guy will recover and come back and squash them.
7. One guy used to run PR, and until he gets better everyone else is clueless and paralyzed.
We can rule out #1, #2, and #3. Right now I will bet on some mix of #6 and #7. But is there any point at which the sheer passage of time should push us to believe in #4 and #5? Note that Raul has not shown his face either. Are there alternative hypotheses? The desire for a grand reentrance? After all, a growing number of Cuban officials are talking of Castro's return...
Posted by Tyler Cowen on August 8, 2006 at 06:02 AM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
Castro? You had me going there. I was sure you were talking about someone else closer to home.
Posted by: Ronald Brak at Aug 8, 2006 7:20:46 AM
Raul's silence pretty strongly argues for 6 & 7, though the "clueless and paralyzed" status may be chronic in his case, which is congruent with the first part of 5. Alternately, Fidel may not have been aware he ceded power, and is expected be mightily annoyed when he finds out. 4 is certainly true to some extent. Lage's boast yesterday that Fidel will be with us for another 80 years seems like the sort of thing one would say when expecting weeks or months.
Posted by: mkl at Aug 8, 2006 9:41:40 AM
I suggest a modification of #6. Say Raul is healthy and in charge, but hiding and waiting to see who steps up to take power. Then Raul will know who the ambitious person is and have him killed, confident that the biggest threat to his rule has been eliminated.
Posted by: Al T at Aug 8, 2006 10:10:45 AM
Tyrants have to show that they are in charge, which they do by going on TV. If no one is doing that, it suggests there is not yet a clear winner in the post-Fidel power struggle.
Posted by: Kent Guida at Aug 8, 2006 1:22:30 PM
What I've been assuming, I guess, is some combination of #5 and #6. If Raúl is safely and firmly in charge, and if Fidel is expected to recover, any public apparances by Raúl would make him appear to be the _new_ leader of Cuba rather than the temporary steward. This is a weak position to be in in terms of propaganda, and of course it might also cause another shoe to drop but that's pure speculation.
Put more succintly: I expect that if Fidel is really not going to recover, Raúl will appear, but not before.
Posted by: neil at Aug 8, 2006 1:22:42 PM
Kent Guida, I guess that explains why a lot of the world thought that Mickey Mouse was a tyrant during the last century...
Posted by: neil at Aug 8, 2006 1:27:17 PM
"a lot of the world thought that Mickey Mouse was a tyrant during the last century..."
Better ask Minnie about that. And maybe, while you're at it, ask her to answer the question of the century: You and Mickey are mice, Pluto's a dog, Donald's a duck but what the heck is Goofy, anyway?
I can't help thinking though, that the queen bee who is born first after the old queen dies has to go around and kill her royal sisters before they emerge from their cells. If she doesn't act quickly and one emerges, there's a fight to the death.
Maybe El Beardo is in a coma. If Raul is his closest relative on the island and the doctor asks if extraordinary measures should be taken to keep him alive, I wonder what Raul would say? Because I think we know what his daughter in Miami would say. I predict a radical reversal of positions since the Schiavo affair on whether people in comas should be kept alive, especially by the lefty Fidel-is-God crowd.
Posted by: Robert Speirs at Aug 8, 2006 4:21:57 PM
Why do you think Mickey wears those big ears? It's to hide the horns ...
Posted by: Hei Lun Chan at Aug 8, 2006 6:37:39 PM
Tyler,
Why did you write the list from the perspective of the leader?
(and it broke down in 6)
Posted by: Douglas Knight at Aug 8, 2006 9:20:59 PM
Assume Fidel is dead. if you were Raul, would you stick around? Or would you loot the treasury, and leave, for anywhere, as soon as possible?
Assume Fidel is alive. if you were Raul, would you hide yourself? wouldn't you be afraidof what Fidel thought you were doing while you were hidden? wouldn't you want him to be able to account for all of your actions?
The issue is not Raul appearing or not on TV. it's that no one can find him--a different statement.
Posted by: anonymous at Aug 8, 2006 11:53:49 PM
#2 is interesting to apply to the Bush presidency.
In the beginning of his presidency he was giving no press briefings, and very little public appearances, countersignalling. Later on when his political power was much less "secure" he suddenly has to be out giving alot of events.
Posted by: azad at Aug 9, 2006 12:35:03 AM
With regards to Bush, not a real comparison. In his first term he did avoid live, televised press conferences, but still had lots of public appearances - just not ones where people could ask surprising or hostile questions. He started giving more press conferences after the last election. Presumably because he felt more comfortable since he had been reelected.
I think Bush and his people realized he wasn't a very good impromptu public speaker, so they rationally tried to limit the opportunity for mistakes. It's a PR game of trying to control the media message. A great public speaker like Clinton was able to do that live and unscripted, but that is a rare talent.
There's two ways of looking at it: at one level, Bush is as secure as a politician can be. He won two terms and there is no higher elective office for him to seek -- plus he has no direct successor perceived to be a Bush "3rd term" like Bush 1 for Reagan or Gore for Clinton. At another level, his ability to enact his agenda is limited by his popularity level.
At this stage Bush's only catastrophic political risk is impeachment, an unlikely, thoug possible, scenario. And a lame duck last two years is typical for 2 term presidents, so there probably isn't much difference between a strong and weak last two years.
Posted by: mike at Aug 9, 2006 1:32:43 PM
gevoel schoolmeisje ^^^ shemales catalog ^^^ live show thumb ^^^ stupefacente giovane ^^^ sensation mere ^^^ peu dans le vent ^^^ plus chaud papa mpegs ^^^ plus froid mman dix neuf ^^^ adeguato fighette doppio penetrazione ^^^ fresco amatoriali prostituta ^^^ attraktiv skolflicka asna till mun ^^^ djarv skolflicka striptease ^^^ sheepish asiatiche strip ^^^ amabile segretaria spogliarello ^^^ bukkake rousse ^^^ caresse intime perverse ^^^ huora kalu pk ^^^ lesbisk bondagetemple cunt ^^^ i fred webkamera ^^^ kjoligere djerv mamma ^^^ varmere svak jalebukk ^^^ varmere fin mama ^^^ komikos souideza ^^^ axiagapitos efivos avnanismos ^^^ pere hirsute ^^^ le plus froid quarante six ^^^ karaflos sexi ^^^ karaflos roufixia ^^^
Posted by: levan at Sep 12, 2006 3:16:35 AM
