Ronald Reagan, the former US President, was the first politician to be called by his detractors ‘the Teflon President’. The nickname was coined by Patricia Schroeder, then a Democrat Congresswoman, who reflected on how a plethora of scandals surrounding his presidency seemed to have no effect on his individual popularity with the public.
“As a young congresswoman, I got the idea of calling President Reagan the ‘Teflon President’ while fixing eggs for my kids. He had a Teflon coat like the pan,” she once wrote, and then continued her argument in this way: “Why was Reagan so blame-free? The answer can be found in the label that did stick to him – The Great Communicator.”
According to Schroeder: “Reagan’s ability to connect with Americans was coveted by every politician. He could deliver a speech with such sincerity. And his staff was brilliant in playing up his strengths. They made sure the setting for any speech perfectly captured, re-emphasised and embraced the theme of that speech. And, let’s be honest, Reagan told people what they wanted to hear.”
Since then, many politicians in power – in the US and elsewhere – were dubbed as ‘Teflon’ presidents or prime ministers. Some political leaders seem to have the flair that make them non-stick: whatever happens under their watch does not stick on to them; while others have the misfortune of being blamed for anything negative that happens, whether they are really to blame or not.
Apart from the publicity stratagems used to prop up political leaders delivering their message, I think Schroeder’s point that “Reagan told people what they wanted to hear” is the real clincher.
I am more than tempted to describe Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, a ‘Teflon Prime Minister’. His popularity has not waned one bit despite the mistakes made by his administration: some were silly and some were serious mistakes, but Muscat has always managed to come out of the fray unscathed.
His way of taking sides with the prevailing popular sentiment by publicly expressing his disapproval of something that was carried out by the administration for which he is responsible resonates positively with the public. He did so in his first – somewhat belated – reaction to the shooting incident in which the driver of former minister Manuel Mallia was involved. He just said he was “angry and disgusted” at what happened, echoing exactly what was the overwhelming general public reaction to the incident.
Even after developments following that incident – undoubtedly damaging to the government – had kept appearing in the media headlines for three weeks, leading to his subsequent sacking of Mallia, various opinion polls – published or otherwise – showed that his popularity had not faltered, and that Simon Busuttil, his principal adversary, was no nearer at closing up the big gap in the so-called ‘trust barometer’.
Muscat stays at the top of the popularity stakes despite the fact that all his ministers have been re-dimensioned and public perception about their abilities to deliver the promised goods has practically hit the ground.
The Opposition’s attacks on the performance or failings of particular ministers, in fact, impinge on Muscat’s popularity as much as water affects a duck’s back.
Joseph Muscat’s popularity has not waned one bit despite the mistakes made by his administration
It has been rumoured that Muscat’s team is continually conducting opinion polls to monitor the public’s mood and to enable him to tell people what they want to hear. This could explain why sometimes he does not react immediately to a situation that crops up suddenly. Cynical though this may be, it could also explain why his popularity has not waned and why public opinion seems to be continually exonerating him for anything it does not approve of.
His recent posture regarding the impending referendum on spring hunting is yet another instance where he has cleverly laid out the ground to ensure that his popularity is not affected whatever the referendum result will be.
His point that he keeps his word and therefore will be personally voting in favour of retaining the ‘status quo’ but at the same time respecting the will of the people, who have every right to choose what they wanted, struck the right note.
It sounded ominous to his political adversaries as it put the PN in a quandary by practically forcing Busuttil to state his personal position; even if the PN – as expected – would also be saying that it leaves the decision in the hands of the people. The least the PN wants at the moment is to allow the referendum on spring hunting to be perceived as some political tug-of-war between Muscat and Busuttil.
The obvious question is: how long can Muscat keep on playing this game? Muscat’s administration is soon approaching its mid-term, traditionally the nadir of any administration with the enthusiasm of the election victory having vanished and with disappointment among the electorate starting to rear its ugly head.
Yet on a personal basis, Muscat seems oblivious to all this, continuing to be popular by saying whatever the people want to hear – irrespective of what he and his motley Cabinet are actually doing.
micfal@maltanet.net