According to The News Hour on PBS, President Obama will keep his Blackberry, with additional security added, and changes to comply with the Presidential Records Act.
I'll bet that he stops using it within three months: as the responsibilities of office start to weigh on the President, I'm sure he'll accept the fact that he needs to have around him, and to use, the screens and filters other chief executives have enjoyed. I predict that the President will accept that he must be offline if he's to attain maximum effectiveness.
Wouldn't less "insulation" from the outside world make a leader more effective?
If your country's predecessor is any example, being fed information just from a set group (with their own agenda) doesn't do anyone any good in the wash-up.
IMHO, these "record acts" are too strict. Public officials need the ability to discuss issues and accept advice in confidence. Ideas bantered around in e-mails, IMHO, do not constitute "an official public record", any more than telephone calls do.
When discussing an issue, all points of view, including extreme ones, are considered. Just because an extreme idea is mentioned in passing (e.g. using nuclear weapons in a trouble spot) does not mean the idea will be adopted, or the advisor who suggests it is a wild freak.
If society is adamant to know 'everything', than record (video and audio) the president 24/7. Everything at all times, after all, his wife may offer comments late at night (as Eleanor Roosevelt freely did).
Have you ever dialled the wrong speed dial or emailed the wrong person? I've even had people leave messages for someone else on my answering machine even though my greeting stated my name clearly. And, from the message, it was clear to me that the mistake was not enabled by a linguistic barrier.
The POTUS' confidentiality requirements are much higher than mine; I think it would be a good idea if his communications tools had extra precautions built-in against messages being misdirected. I'm not certain that any existing device has such a feature, but it would be A Good Thing.
(1) to put highly competent people around him who are absolutely loyal with no agendas, AND (2) be willing to hear the facts, as unpleasant as they may be.
FDR was fortunate to have very loyal people and generally (though not always) was open minded about things. Eleanor was a mixed blessing for FDR. She was able to get out in the country and bring him unfiltered information about conditions that he needed to have, this was most valuable. She also served as a test flagpole for new ideas; she'd publicize an idea and if rejected by the public, he wouldn't push it forward but blame it on her. On the other hand, she received tons of mail from individuals seeking help and was not afraid to bother him or his staff with such issues, which they didn't have time for.
Truman's people were generally extremely loyal to him, but some critics say that they were not of the highest caliber and also a little greedy to enrich themselves. But Truman was extremely open minded and wanted to hear all points of view before making a decision.
Nixon's primary people were extremely loyal to him. But Nixon wasn't as open minded and had too many pre-conceived notions that his staff only reinforced.
Nixon liked his friend Bebe Rebozo because Bebe never wanted anything from Nixon and was loyal and confidential. All presidents need someone like that but it's very hard to find.
Unfortunately for Nixon, lower level units, such as inherited from Johnson, despised Nixon and sabotaged him when possible from day one. They leaked information that needed to stay confidential. Nixon was NOT paranoid, people WERE out to get him with a vengence from day one. All this contributed to Watergate. How Nixon handled affairs leading to Watergate was wrong and extremely well discussed in history. But not so well discussed is how Nixon was treated; and that was just as wrong, and, _bad for the country_ .
What is "truth"? Two people examining the exact same set of facts may come up with completely different conclusions.
The President's time is limited and he must delegate a great deal of work to subordinates. He simply does not have the time to do his own research and depends on his staff to filter and distill complex issues down to essentials, but still include subtle nuances that could influence the ultimate decision.
Today's technology is a powerful tool, but it is no substitute for _thinking_. I hope the new president's people don' t think all the answers are in Google or problems solved via an e-mail.
All Presidents need an "S.O.B." to act as their gate keeper to preserve time. There is not time to see every cabinet officer, member of Congress, or visiting governor who wants an audience.
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.