There is a growing trend among candidates to talk in public as though they are pundits. This problem is particularly severe among Democrats. Instead of, say, talking about their religious beliefs, standing up for what they believe in, and laying out comprehensive national security plans that will make the average American feel safe, Democrats have a strange desire to talk about the need for other Democrats to talk about religion, talk about the need for Democrats to stand up for what they believe in, and talk about the need for Democrats to lay out comprehensive national security plans. Even among Democrats, Pundidate Fever has reached exceptional, even chronic levels within the DLC-nexus of the party, as virtually everything DLC-types propose policy wise is justified first and foremost by how that policy will supposedly help Democrats win elections. For quite some time now, many of online have argued that this pundit lust has been one of the primary reasons why most people don't Democrats believe in the policies they propose. For example, I made this argument last August, in one of my better linked posts of all-time.
The desire for candidates to talk like pundits is fairly understandable, as Paul Rosenberg wrote last week:
It's very understandable why politicians would want to be pundits. Pundits get far more public exposure than politicians do. They can be wrong 100% of the time, with no fear of losing their jobs, their credibility or their clout. And they don't have to do any real work at all. Certainly not cold calling folks for thousands of dollars, or shaking so many hands you risk dislocating every joint from your shoulder on down.
And, naturally, the politicians who are treated best by the pundits are the ones most eager to be like them.
All this, I think, explains a good deal of what's gone wrong with Obama since he went to Washington. Why'd he hook up with Joe Lieberman of all people? Well, Joe's #1 on the pundit's speed dial for Democrats. Why'd he take sharp jabs at non-existent Democrats who hate religion? Standard pundit fare. Why attack an entire generation of voters--those who routinely show up most reliably in low-turnout primary races? Pundits love to talk generational stuff. Makes them seem all world-historical, like Newt Gingrich!
I think Obama has indeed developed a problem with pundidate fever, as I have discussed in the past. However, today's Democratic whopper comes from Hillary Clinton:
"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?' But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world," Clinton told supporters in Concord.
"So I think I'm the best of the Democrats to deal with that," she added.
Oh, Lord. No matter what else she said in the speech, and even if she thought it was undeserved, why is Clinton talking about perceived Democratic and Republican strengths on terrorism as though she was Joe Klein? This is absolute pundit lust, where Clinton is discussing herself on terrorism not in terms of her approach to terrorism, but rather in how her position on terrorism will help Democrats win elections. An entire generation of neoliberals pundits have made a living concern trolling for Democrats this, and Peter Beinart is now threatening to make it two generations. However, Democratic politicians themselves should not talk like this, because it only undermines our national image as a party that takes winning elections as more important than standing up for what we believe in. In this specific case, it is even worse, because it simply isn't true, as Democrats have drawn even with Republicans on terrorism.
Even if it wasn't true, Democratic candidates should not talk like this. When asked a horserace question, Dems should just say things like "I'm taking nothing for granted" if they are ahead, "we are still in the game" if they are behind, or "I have a lot of work to do" if it is close. When asked their position on any given issue, Dems should just state their position, and not frame it as a good position because it will help win elections, appeal to swing voters, unify the party, appeal to new voters, or whatever. We have to stop the meta talk about our party, and stop the horserae talk, too. Simply put, it makes us look spineless and hollow inside-even condescending. Our candidates should not talk about why what they stand for will appeal to voters. Instead, they need to appeal to voters by talking about what they stand for. This might results in being invited on fewer Sunday talk shows, but in the end it will be much better for the party as a whole.
|
STATE BLOGS
