How are we doing? In a recent TV interview with you, the host criticized the Executive Order on immigration. He claimed problems in input, structure, timing, and communication-about.

But your response was a wave-off, a non-response. You made an off-hand comment (about semantics or the like?) and then let it go—despite the host’s inquiries.

Might you have replied something like the following, and what would the difference have been?

“Well yes, we were less than perfect in constructing the order plus communicating about it. But note that the president seeks greatness for America, and that demands ambitions efforts in difficult arenas. And we think that most folks realize that the harder the task, and the higher the criteria for its success, well, then at the outset initially, more mistakes and even failures
will occur.  So we’ll be polishing the order but we’d remind you of all that has been accomplished in the first days of our Presidency–more than most in history and indeed that which was promised.”

Or sentiments to that effect. But does all this matter? It might matter 100 percent.

The beauty of the new version is that it could be stated even if quite inaccurate—that is, if it was just more “horse-pucky.” But, it would have projected the appearance of both competence (you know your imperfections) and also transparent communication (and you then acknowledge them to the people).

I have reacted positively to much of the Trump endeavor. To this, my liberal friends have of course reacted somewhat snarkily. But I might join them. Your sub-communication rat-tat-tats my own positive hopes. “Making America great again?” One wonders: maybe just “keeping government opaque still”?

Do we have to “look forward” (but not pleasantly, just realistically) to “business as usual and then some”? Even, perhaps, an undrained swamp taking on more water?