Think of all the discussions of PR recorded in H. R. Haldeman’s published diaries and in released archival materials about the Nixon Presidency. Regardless of party, while he is in office, there are strong forces around a President which push for managing information and image. A President’s lawyers are likely to say, a paper trail can hurt you. (Consider the arguments that have cropped up over whether President-elect Obama should use a Blackberry. Or the issues spelled out in several judicial orders issued this week about archiving Bush White House email messages.)

Press spokesmen do what they are paid to do, which largely is to put a positive spin on things. There is a much greater imperative to spin a rosy or simplified picture for the public than to explain how complicated and ambiguous some aspects of governance can be.

So who prepares the client, his supporters, his critics, and the public at large, for accepting nonpartisan, non-political analysis of his actions and motivations once he no longer holds office? I see few such forces around departing Presidents.

As a former President, how do you psychologically leave the cocoon spun around you by loyal defenders (internally, on your payroll, and externally, among advocacy groups and within the blogosphere) and prepare for acceptance of historical accountability which, when done properly, relies on examination of evidence, rather than spin? Compared to how the best managers coach subordinates in a workplace or employees interact with colleagues, or parents raise children, a protective shell can be inherently weakening. Sending out a press spokesperson daily to explain away your every action, and using surrogates to praise and defend you, does little to prepare you for the transition to being examined by historians.

You have to work hard internally to overcome syncopancy in such an environment. Only if you allow your advisors to give you bad news and hash out issues in a way that best enables you to make tough decisions can you overcome some of this, at least a little. (Drudge linked yesterday to a purported forthcoming Outlook piece in WaPo this Sunday by Bob Woodward on 10 Take Aways from the Bush Years. That apparently offers his views on management issues.) But speaking truth to power can be very hard.

The problems can start early. Sometimes, signs of crippling insularity become evident during a campaign. Think back on how often you read an analysis of a campaign in which no one around a candidate felt able to give him or her bad news. Rarely does that make him or her a better candidate. With so many strikes against you, and so few people motivated to make the transition easier, how do you go from avoidance to saying, let ‘em look at the historical record and make up their own minds?

This is an excellent post, David – carefully thought out and nicely written.

Good piece. Blessings.