Jabki ve apne soaring rhetoric ke wings par White House tak pahunche, President Barack Obama ko pata chal sakta hai ki ve ek mission impossible par hain jabki ve iss hafte Syria par apna media blitz launch kar rahe hain -- Monday ko 6 television interviews aur Tuesday ko ek dramatic prime time address. Shayad ve ek skeptical public ko persuade kar lenge, lekin yeh surely unke presidency ka sabse tough speaking assignment hai. Surprisingly, ve ab apne Syrian bet par tripling down kar rahe hain. Pehle unhone red line draw ki, uncertain ki President Bashar al-Assad unke bluff ko call karenge ya nahi. Phir unhone unreliable Congress se vote insist karke doubled down kiya. Ab ve apni almost all chips table par rakh rahe hain apni capacity par betting karke ki ve public opinion ko turn around kar sakte hain. Agar ve public ko win kar lete hain, toh ve Congress ko bhi win kar lenge, lekin agar ve fail ho jaate hain, toh ve Syria ki problem ko apne presidency ka crisis bana denge. (Someday, unke memoirs mein, kya White House insiders humein bata sakte hain ki ve kya soch rahe the?) Kam se kam do major hurdles unke path mein hain jabki ve public ko persuade karna chahte hain. Pehla, ve opinion change karne ki koshish karenge jo unke against harden hona shuru ho gaya hai. Dusra, bully pulpit utna powerful nahi ho sakta jitna ki aksar imagine kiya jaata hai. The intensity factor. Ek public terrain ko yaad rakhna mushkil hai jo iske jaisa rough ho ek president ke liye past few decades mein. War se thak chuke aur ek aur war se cautious, Americans is call to arms ke peeche rally karne ke mood mein nahi hain -- bahut saare logon ko yeh hamari fight nahi lagti, unhe fikr hai ki yeh humein aur gehra le jayega aur unke kuch ardent supporters ko bhi lagta hai ki president aur unki team ke paas wheel par firm grip nahi hai. Gallup poll late iss past week mein pata chala ki majority of the public (51% to 36%) Syrian strike ke against hain. Yeh support ka lowest level hai jo Gallup ko kisi bhi intervention ke liye two decades mein mila hai. Moreover, "intensity factor" opponents ke beech mein zyada strongly run karta hai -- bas Capitol Hill par unke calls aur e-mails ki avalanche ko dekhiye. President nearly three weeks se apna case argue kar rahe hain, aur ab tak, unke paas Hill par bahut saare converts nahi hain. Yeh Democrats aur Republicans dono ke beech mein hai. CNN ke whip count se pata chalta hai ki ve Senate mein ek tight vote win kar sakte hain (unka speech vahaan sabse best work kar sakta hai), lekin House mein strike resolution serious trouble mein hai. Washington Post count se pata chalta hai ki House Democrats ke ek third jitne log no vote kar sakte hain. Overseas bhi, Syria ke bahut kareeb ke nations ke beech mein, president ka rhetorical offensive short pad gaya hai. Modern times mein kisi bhi president ke paas unke peeche itna chhota coalition nahi raha. Libya mein intervention mein 18 nations ne contribute kiya. President George W. Bush ke paas 48 nations coalition mein thi jisne Saddam Hussein par attack kiya. Iss baar, Obama ke paas unke intervention ko support karne ke liye bas handful log honge aur zyadatar sidelines se cheer karenge. A shaky pulpit. Yeh controversy president ke liye ek inopportune moment par bhi aa rahi hai. White House mein shuru mein, ve har major address par massive, almost adoring audiences command kar sakte the. Lekin Osama bin Laden ke killing ki announcement wale unke speech ke alaawa, tuning in karne wale numbers drop ho gaye hain, viewers tend to be more partisan aur television commentators unpar tough ho gaye hain. Notably, television par unke ab tak ke do Syrian interviews se bas modest audiences hi draw hue hain. Iss par thoda dhyaan diya gaya hai lekin yeh ab important hai ki Obama ne apni policies se zyada khud ko sell karne mein zyada success payi hai. Obama ke speeches -- unki rhetorical strength aur skilled delivery ke bawajood -- unke agenda ko forward move karne mein thodi hi success payi hai. Americans abhi bhi unhe pasand karte hain, lekin ve unki policies ke baare mein apna mind khud bana lete hain. Obamacare ke favor mein public majority build karne mein unki inability ko dekhiye. White House yeh argue karega ki majority ne gun control aur gay rights par unke stands ko support kiya hai, lekin kya yeh unke speeches ki wajah se hai ya demographic shifts aur events jaise ki Newtown elementary school massacre ki wajah se? Indeed, ab political scientists ke beech mein debate hai ki bully pulpit utna powerful hai jitna ki kaha jaata hai, especially contemporary politics mein. Texas A&M University ke Professor George Edwards aur political scientists ke beech mein ek dean ne apni 2006 book, "On Deaf Ears: The Limits of the Bully Pulpit," mein conclude kiya ki humara yeh view highly inflated hai ki presidents kitna public minds ko apne speeches ke through change kar paaye hain. Ve apne argument ko support karne ke liye numerous cases present karte hain aur ek aisa case jo aaj especially relevant hai:. President Franklin D. Roosevelt ke paas Americans se connect karne ki legendary ability thi unke fireside chats ke through, lekin jab unhe apne second term mein apne Supreme Court-packing bill ke baare mein skeptical public ko convince karna tha, toh fire fizzled out ho gaya. Edwards ka data yeh bhi suggest karta hai ki presidents public ko mobilize karne mein bas tabhi success hote hain jab opinion already unke favor mein ho. Yeh clearly Syria ke case mein nahi hai. Yaad hai humein, last Oval Office address jisne dramatically public opinion needle ko military conflict par move kiya tha, 1983 mein aayi thi jab President Ronald Reagan ne country se Lebanon mein marine barracks par bloody attack aur Grenada ke tiny island mein U.S. intervention ke baare mein baat ki thi. Military action ke liye public support immediate polling mein 10 points jump kar gaya tha. Lekin uss case mein, Reagan ek aisi story bata rahe the jo already ho chuki thi ek public ko jiski majority already intervention ke favor mein thi. Ve unse rally round karne ke liye nahi keh rahe the ek new, uncertain venture ke liye, aur ve abhi bhi apne first term mein the jab audiences big thi. Yeh argue karna nahi hai ki Obama ke liye Tuesday night ko sab kuch khatam ho gaya hai. Big speeches issues ko reframe kar sakte hain. Ve humein ek higher purpose ke peeche unite kar sakte hain. Ve humein apne firmly held beliefs par question karne ke liye push kar sakte hain. Obama ke paas unusually persuasive powers hain. Shayad ve fresh arguments leke aa sakte hain jo undecideds ko unki direction mein la sakte hain. Shayad unke paas al-Assad kitna brutal hai ke horrific new evidence honge. Shayad ... shayad, lekin agar unke quiver mein new arrows hain, toh ve ab tak unhe shoot kar chuke hote. Iss commentary mein express kiye gaye opinions solely David Gergan aur Dan Katz ke hain.
President Barack Obama ke saamne ek significant challenge tha jab ve 2013 mein Syria par apna media blitz launch kar rahe the ek skeptical public ko persuade karne ke liye. 6 television interviews aur ek prime time address ke saath, Obama ka aim public opinion ko turn around karna tha aur Congress se support gain karna tha. However, task bahut daunting tha hardened opinions ke wajah se Syria mein intervention ke against, aur bully pulpit potentially kam powerful ho raha tha. Additionally, public ki war se thakavat aur Syria mein US ki involvement ke baare mein concerns ne Obama ke mission ko rally support karna exceedingly difficult bana diya. Unki skilled delivery aur rhetorical strength ke bawajood, public minds ko change karna aur support mobilize karna Obama ke liye ek tough job prove hua.