Advocacy: It’s Good, it’s Bad, & it’s Deplorable

Brian Salvi
Jul 25, 2017 · 6 min read

Late last week Sean Spicer resigned from his position as the White House Press Secretary and Communications Director. In a weird way, I’m going to miss him. I’m not going to miss the times he stood at the podium lying for a President who obviously wishes the checks and balances construction of our Constitution wasn’t a thing. I’m not going to miss the Melissa McCarthy SNL skits (as funny as they were). What I’m going to miss is the fact that we knew that he knew he couldn’t do his job to the extent 45 wanted. Spicer struggled with his job because it asked him to do things that could not be done by anyone with a conscience.

Every time Spicer would squirm or fumble his way through a ridiculous explanation on a decision or statement made by 45, you could tell he struggled. You could see the internal conflict he had taking stances to justify something a 70 year old man baby just did/said. He was an advocate, just not a very good one. That’s because the best advocates, the ones who really persuade and move people, are the ones who don’t just take a position and start arguing. The best advocates are more than that. The best advocates are credible and deliver their message with conviction. As hard as Spicer tried, he never had a chance to be credible. They say you only get one chance to make a first impression and everyone remembers Spicer’s:

Yelling at the media about how the inauguration crowd was the biggest ever despite it being an obvious lie to anyone with eyeballs. Attempts to regain his credibility failed and it obviously weighed on him. Whenever he walked out to the podium, he knew he didn’t have the full support of the truth behind him. His lack of credibility led to a lack of conviction as well. Viewers could see that he didn’t even believe the words he was saying (for good reason). After all, how can Spicer persuade us to believe something that he clearly didn’t believe himself? In the end, he simply (and thankfully) was not a good advocate.

Up until 45 won the Republican primary, I had always viewed advocacy as a good thing. I viewed it as a necessary thing. It was never “bad” because it was supposed to work as intended - Two sides take facts, interpret them, and argue the meaning. As a trial lawyer (as well as a fellow Quattuor blogger, https://medium.com/@David_Baez), it’s what I practice every day of my work life. I am a zealous advocate. It’s part of the oath I took to become an attorney. Zealous advocacy. I advocate to give a voice to those who would otherwise be voiceless. It gives me tremendous pride to be that voice. That being said, there are understood boundaries to zealous advocacy. The most important of those being truth.

We used to rely on the truth prevailing. Winston Churchill is quoted saying “the truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.” Truth is always supposed prevail at the end. Truth is supposed to set the stage for advocacy. It sets the rules. Interpreting facts a different way and advocating for a different opinion is one thing. Dropping a line like “alternative facts” is a whole other. It shows complacency in going outside of the boundary of truth. And in a world that is increasingly confused by the information being presented, it is dangerous.

If you advocate with lies and not facts, you are playing with no boundaries. And without boundaries, advocates are dangerous. That’s why Spicer’s resignation is actually worrisome. Worrisome because there are people who have a similar disregard for the truth, but who are far better advocates.

KellyAnne Conway, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and this new guy, Tony Scaramucci (just to name a few)are dangerous because their zealous advocacy appears to know no boundary. KellyAnne coined “alternative facts” after all. By definition, there is no such thing as “alternative” fact. Facts are facts. They can be interpreted, but they cannot be altered. If they are altered, the audience needs to know alteration is occurring. This administration has no problem pushing alternative facts without providing context or the evidence to support their contentions.

Six months into this Presidency, I have been forced to re-think advocacy. As a trial attorney, if I’m faced with a fact that is damaging to my case, I acknowledge it and try to help a jury understand it. I cannot, under any circumstance, present an “alternative fact.” I can provide *additional* facts that might dampen the damage, but I cannot alter a fact. I cannot change the truth or act as if it never happened. It would be unethical. I would get sanctioned and if I continued to do it, my career as an attorney would be over. The zealous advocates for 45? They don’t worry about it. When presented with an irrefutable fact, they double down, try to discredit the media, and walk away as if it’s all par for the course.

The sickest part is that 45’s tweeting habits SHOULD make it impossible for these talking heads to continue to push false narratives, but their advocacy does not waver. The advocacy we see from this administration is truly deplorable. It’s an administration that lies so often I couldn’t possible put it all together for you. (Thanks NY Times — https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html)

Using a recent example — KellyAnne Conway was on with Brian Stelter of CNN and this was an actual exchange. “The scandals are about the president’s lies, about voter fraud, about wire-tapping, his repeated lies about those issues. That’s the scandal,” She interrupted Stelter to say “[45] doesn’t think he’s lying about those issues, and you know it. He has gone forth and he talked about surveillance.”

Let’s remember:

Voter fraud — largely researched and proven to be false.

Wire-tapping — investigated and guess what? Never happened.

And her response was “he doesn’t think he’s lying.” Think about that. Would that be an acceptable response when confronted with a lie in ANY real life scenario? What would a jury think if I told them during closing argument that “although it looks like 2+2=4, my client thinks 2+2=5 and has gone forth and talked about math.” That wouldn’t be zealous advocacy on my part. It’s shameless advocacy. It’s dangerous advocacy. In that hypothetical, I would expect a jury to see the lunacy of my statement and I’d lose. So it would never even cross my mind. But internal dialogue seemingly doesn’t occur within the 45 administration. If it does happen, then there is total complacency and we’re dealing with an administration more concerned with diverting attention than anything else. The administration has created an environment where the dangerous advocacy I just mentioned isn’t deterred, it’s encouraged.

While Sean Spicer tried to be a dangerous advocate, he just wasn’t that good at it. His successor, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, is sadly far more skilled. Like her father, she sports a southern twang that somehow makes her words sound more genuine (and far more annoying). And now we have Tony Scaramucci, a slick Italian Wall St. attorney. He’s exactly who we should fear when it comes to successfully pushing false narratives on behalf of 45. He not only seems willing to shamelessly advocate, but he’ll say anything along the way…

Seriously?

This guy is so desperate to prove his loser boss is a winner that he referenced 45 throwing a football through a car tire, a sequence that has unquestionably NEVER happened. It’s a stupid, inconsequential statement, but it’s shocking to hear not only because of how ridiculous it sounds, but because there is plenty of evidence on how Scaramucci used to feel about 45…

So what happened, Tony? Has 45 changed for the better now? He hasn’t. Did his quarterback skills force you to rethink your opinion of 45’s politics? Of course not.

The only difference now is that 45 is a client. He’s a client who, if Tony plays nice, will reward him in the end. So what does Tony do? He puts his advocacy hat on and doesn’t look back. I’d have no problem with it if he played by the rules, but this administration has provided zero evidence to suggest they will. We’ll see what happens to Tony over the long haul. Maybe the constant defense of lies will weigh on him too. Either way, when advocacy get’s placed in the hands people who disregard the boundary of truth, there is reason to be concerned.

Quattuor

Just 4 gents in the middle of our life trying to figure out what the hell is going on here. Interested in many things, experts in none.

Thanks to Evan Romero

Brian Salvi

Written by

Because you want to know my thoughts or commentary on stuff? ND '09 Law '13 Chicago Attorney.

Quattuor

Quattuor

Just 4 gents in the middle of our life trying to figure out what the hell is going on here. Interested in many things, experts in none.

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade