A TALE OF TWO STORIES! Its still good being John McCain, as two stirring narratives show us: // link // print // previous // next //
FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 2008
OBAMA GETS IT RIGHT: In our view, Obama did a good job this week, batting aside that childish tire gauge stuff and turning the foolishness back on McCain. Getting people to inflate their tires isnt Obamas energy planbut the McCain campaign had been pushing such notions. Though Dowd and Collins were puzzled by this, it was classic GOP politicsthe politics of clownish ridicule. In response, Obama employed some ridicule of his ownand made some accurate statements:
Its dangerous for Obama to make claims about lying. (Under current rules of the game, Republicans are permitted to make that claim; Democrats not so much.) But this is very much like the approach we suggested when it came to the Spears/Hilton ad. Silly claims should be batted awayexcept to the extent that they are used to tag McCain for his frivolous conduct. When we made this suggestion about the Spears ad, it produced confusion on the web (just click here)but this is what we were talking about. Just think how much more effective this approach would be if Dems and libs had laid more groundwork over the past dozen years.
Its like these guys take pride in being ignorant, Obama said. This is the kind of thing they do. And indeed: Thats what they did in Campaign 2000 with their scripted clowning about Earth in the Balance. Its what theyve done for the past quarter century with their ludicrous claims about taxes. (If we lower tax rates, we get higher revenues!) And, of course, theyve endlessly made a joke of our discourse with their framing of ludicrous character issues. (John Kerry looks Frenchand he wind-surfs! Why wont Obama eat ice cream?) For the most part, Democratic and liberal elites have failed to go to the public, saying the things Obama said. Lets repeat a very basic message:
Yes, this is very serious businessas it was during Campaign 2000, as it was during Campaign 04. But in those campaigns, the press corps endlessly clowned around, often at the express direction of the RNC.
Al Gores polo shirts dont always look right! Brian Williams said that, again and again. He now anchors NBC Nightly News. Why did we ever accept this?
We have tried, for years, to urge this message on career liberals: Theyre making fun of something thats true. But this is serious business. (Or: Theyre talking about things that are utterly stupid. But this is serious business.) Through the endless clowning of the RNCclowning thats pimped by the mainstream pressaverage voters get treated like fools. Its high time that Dems and libs told them.
We think Obamas statement points the way to a long-overdue era of Dem Party messaging. But it cant be done by the candidate himself, in August of an election year. It has to be done by other entities, year after year after year.
Its like these guys take pride in being ignorant! Obama was talking about his Republican foes; more often, weve spoken that way about the press corps. Either way, the message is central. This leads us to Paul Krugmans column:
THE CULTURE OF STUPID: This morning, Krugman is speaking about Republicans, not about the press corps. But he offers a primal assessment, one wed extend to the press:
The GOP is the party of stupid, Krugman says. But alas! As we noted in yesterdays post, stupidification has worked.
Indeed, both major parties currently function inside a culture of stupid. Consider the issue of off-shore drilling, the issue Krugman discusses today, as he did last Friday. Does anyone know any basic facts about the issue of drilling? Wed have to say that we really dont. And we follow political coverage more closely than most other voters.
Why do we know so few basic facts? Consider a discussion of off-shore drilling on Monday nights Race for the White House. As usual, the pundits began with a favorite, low-IQ framework: Has Obama done a flip-flop on drilling? (This lightweight framework largely defined the coverage of Campaign 04.) Soon, John Harwood offered an intelligent clarification: Obama has said that drilling would be on the table, not that he actually favors it.
But then, Rachel Maddow broke every known rule of Modern Pundit Discourse! (This is why were planning to make her host of Meet the Press.) Omigod! Rachel Maddow actually tried to put basic facts on the table! She even used a very strange word. She talked about reality:
Say what? Drilling would really have no impact on gas prices for a generation? The idea that drilling would lower gas prices has no basis in reality? In todays column, Krugman once again cites a poll which suggests that voters think something quite different. Heres how he put it last week, though he discusses the same point today: [R]oughly half of voters say that increased offshore drilling would reduce gas prices within a year.
Sorrythats bunkum, Krugman said in that column. Four days later, Maddow tried introducing the same idea. She tried discussing reality.
Sorry, Maddow! As weve long noted, reality plays an amazingly minor role in Modern Pundit Culture. Given the way the campaign has been moving, Maddow had made a remarkable statement: Offshore drilling wont affect gas prices! Maddow had made a remarkable claim. But heres what happened next:
Maddow placed reality on the table. Result? Harwood returned to the question of who is flip-flopping. Buchanan reiterated the political claimthis issues a winner for McCain. Gregory then previewed the upcoming segments. They would focus on Paris Hiltons momand on John McCains mother as well.
We were very much struck by that exchange, in which reality was instantly kicked to the curb. In fact, you can watch dozens of pundit discussions of drilling without ever hearing a single word about the issues realities. Will off-shore drilling lower gas prices? Maddow tried to raise this essential questionand it was batted aside.
What are the facts about off-shore drilling? Were not surewe dont really knowbecause of this startling culture of stupid. Today, Krugman goes after the GOP. But theres a second party of stupid out therethe party of pundits and press. A suggestion: Why not adapt Obamas remarks and extend them to this hoary party?
Background: Two recent profiles of John McCain recounted a famous old incident. Its still pretty good to be John McCain, we thought as we read these accounts:
SAINT MCCAIN BATTLES THE FLAG: Its still pretty good being John McCain, though its not quite as good as it once was. The press corps doesnt sanctify him as lavishly they did in the past; some significant parts of the corps now may be rooting against him. But its hard to turn battleship narratives aroundand that includes the battleship narrative about McCains vast honor.
The idea that McCain is a man of vast honor is one of the pundit corps battleship narratives; it has steamed ahead in a very straight line for a very long time. This brings us to Robert Kaisers ballyhooed profile of McCain in last Fridays Washington Post. Kaiser writes from the top of the insider press corps; hes a former Post managing editor. Within his high-level insider cohort, how entrenched is the notion of John McCains sterling character? We were struck by the way Kaiser told the old tale of John McCain and the confederate battle flag.
During Campaign 2000, a battle was raging in South Carolina about that dad-gummed flag. In his typical straight-talking way, McCain took roughly eighteen positions on the issue within a couple of weeks in the state. Then, he dramatically reversed himself again, shortly after George W. Bush clinched the GOP nomination.
To Kaiser, this is a story of McCains high-mindednesshigh-mindedness which can lead to devastating self-criticism. Sorrywe had a different reaction as we read Kaisers piece.
To us, Kaisers rendition of this story makes McCain seem quite immature. The story begins in early 2000, with the Palmetto primary looming:
To us, thats a very odd story. To our ear, McCains prose evokes the turmoil of a tormented teen, not the considered, stable judgments of a (then) 64-year-old man. But under the well-known rules of the game, such incidents are always said to show McCains vast moral grandeur. In his telling of the story, Kaiser simply accepts, on faith, the assertion that McCain was appalled by his lapse; he fails to see any oddness in the overblown sturm und drang he describes. Again, heres the framework Kaiser built around that tale of high moral torment: [S]uch high-mindedness can be difficult to sustain, and when he fails to do so, McCain's self-criticism can be devastating.
Of course, McCain could have been posturing in that book. But Kaiser avoids such thoughts.
Unfortunately, Kaisers tale is marked by the bungling of basic facts. (After all, this is the press corps.) In Kaisers story, McCain doesnt reject his lie until a year later, in the book he wrote. (Earlier, Kaiser explains that Mark Salter really did all the writing.) In fact, as noted above, McCain returned to South Carolina in April 2000, shortly after Bush clinched nomination, to retract his statements about the flag. This Tuesday, Terry Neal included this basic fact in his own post about McCain, at The Root. But even Neal assumed McCains high character as he recounted the battle flag story.
In fact, Neal was writing a highly critical piece about the way McCain attacked Obama for playing the race card last week. But he too assumes McCains high character when it came to that dad-gummed flag. Neal was present to see McCains speech. According to Neal, the solon was bowing to conscience:
Again, Kaiser didnt seem to know about this part of the story.
How good is it to be John McCain? In his piece, Neal complains about the way McCain used race against Obama. But even he puts a positive cast on this eight-year-old battle flag tale. According to Neal, McCain headed south and gave that speech because hed listened to his conscience. You could sense that, Neal now says. He seems to see this as a fact.
In fact, McCain got a ton of good publicity when he returned to South Carolina and delivered that self-flogging speech. Pundits praised him for his vast honestyfor being so honest about his own lie. (For one example, just click here; scroll down to 5/19/00.) Eight years later, Neal still praises McCains act of conscienceand he doesnt consider the possibility that the speech could have been an act of self-interest. In February 2000, trying to win, McCain said one thing about the flag. Two months later, he said something elseand won back the praise of the press.
Why did McCain reverse himself on the flag? We dont have the slightest idea. But Kaiser heaps praise on a 64-year-old man whose turmoil resembles a tortured teen-agers. And Neal asserts, despite recent events, that McCain simply bowed to his conscience. Its possible that Neal is right, of coursebut its hard to understand why he feels sure. Its still pretty good to be John McCain. Battleships turn around slowlyand this ships been at sea a long time.
It was good being John McCain then: In real time, Neal reported the speech for the Post; his report bathed McCain in the highest praise (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 4/20/00). Could this explain why McCain gave the speech? We dont know how to judge such things. But them again, were not sure why Neal and Kaiser seem to think they do.
Good God! John McCain was a saint:
There was even a bit of passive aggression from the saintly solon: Asked about the purpose and timing of today's speech, McCain said he simply felt compelled to make a personal statement and that he had not thought about whether it would put more pressure on Bush to take a stronger position. Good God! What a high-minded man!
At any rate, McCain was praised for his candor againfor his candor about his lying! Eight years later, hes still being praisedfor that famed act of conscience, of course.
Disappearing Quinn: Most likely, youve never heard about the man who ran McCains Palmetto campaign. The press corps didnt go there much; they were in the tank for McCain, and this was a man to avoid. For a taste of the action, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 3/10/03. Key words: left of the Klan.
For more on this topic, click here.