All Style, Little Substance
I suspect the post-mortems of the Iowa caucus will continue until at least Monday, at which time the focus will be moved to New Hampshire in the run-up to that state's primary on Thursday. While the coverage state-side has been on the "upstart" nature of the results, foreign coverage seems blown away by the fact that an African American, i.e., a black man, won so handily in this first round. Watching America has a huge listing of articles dealing with just that fact.
One article not on that list was a thoughtful op-ed piece written by Michael Barone for the UK's Times Online. The question Mr. Barone raises is one that many of us have been asking: where's the meat?
British readers might be pardoned for wondering whether Americans – or at least Iowa caucus-goers – are a little crazy. On Thursday night, the ninth night of Christmas, some 340,000 Iowans (out of 2 million registered voters) chose for their party’s presidential nominations two men whom no one outside their home states had heard of four years ago and who, between them, have less than four years’ experience in the federal government. ...
What is missing from all this discussion, you may have noticed, is a rigorous debate on public policy. For most of the past year Democrats have been denouncing George W. Bush, who will not be on the November ballot, and Republicans have been denouncing Mrs Clinton, who, given the Iowa results, may well not be either. Democratic turnout in the Iowa caucuses seems to have been double the Republican turnout, a ratio reflected also in contributions to presidential candidates – a good sign for Democrats.
...My view is that the issue content of both parties’ candidates has been exceedingly thin, and that there is room for a rollicking debate on where public policy should go next in America. Whether the two parties’ eventual nominees – we’ll almost surely know the Democrat by February 5 but may not know the Republican till some time later – will provide such serious intellectual content is far from certain. [Emphasis added]
Exceedingly thin? I believe a more appropriate term might be "non-existent," which, unfortunately, has been the story of national campaigns for the last several cycles. Candidates have come to believe in the 30-second ad and the 2-second sound bite. The easiest messages to deliver in that format are glittering banalities and attacks against the opposition. The press, who could change that focus by pressing candidates on policy proposals and specifics, apparently prefers that approach, so we get televised debates in which the candidates are asked to raise their hands to indicate whether they believe in creationist theory.
And what the American public is left with is what Atrios calls the "Trust Us" campaign: generalities designed to avoid both informing and offending the voters.
So, Mr. Barone, don't hold your breath waiting for a rigorous debate on public policy. It just isn't going to happen. And that's a shame. A damned shame.
One article not on that list was a thoughtful op-ed piece written by Michael Barone for the UK's Times Online. The question Mr. Barone raises is one that many of us have been asking: where's the meat?
British readers might be pardoned for wondering whether Americans – or at least Iowa caucus-goers – are a little crazy. On Thursday night, the ninth night of Christmas, some 340,000 Iowans (out of 2 million registered voters) chose for their party’s presidential nominations two men whom no one outside their home states had heard of four years ago and who, between them, have less than four years’ experience in the federal government. ...
What is missing from all this discussion, you may have noticed, is a rigorous debate on public policy. For most of the past year Democrats have been denouncing George W. Bush, who will not be on the November ballot, and Republicans have been denouncing Mrs Clinton, who, given the Iowa results, may well not be either. Democratic turnout in the Iowa caucuses seems to have been double the Republican turnout, a ratio reflected also in contributions to presidential candidates – a good sign for Democrats.
...My view is that the issue content of both parties’ candidates has been exceedingly thin, and that there is room for a rollicking debate on where public policy should go next in America. Whether the two parties’ eventual nominees – we’ll almost surely know the Democrat by February 5 but may not know the Republican till some time later – will provide such serious intellectual content is far from certain. [Emphasis added]
Exceedingly thin? I believe a more appropriate term might be "non-existent," which, unfortunately, has been the story of national campaigns for the last several cycles. Candidates have come to believe in the 30-second ad and the 2-second sound bite. The easiest messages to deliver in that format are glittering banalities and attacks against the opposition. The press, who could change that focus by pressing candidates on policy proposals and specifics, apparently prefers that approach, so we get televised debates in which the candidates are asked to raise their hands to indicate whether they believe in creationist theory.
And what the American public is left with is what Atrios calls the "Trust Us" campaign: generalities designed to avoid both informing and offending the voters.
So, Mr. Barone, don't hold your breath waiting for a rigorous debate on public policy. It just isn't going to happen. And that's a shame. A damned shame.
Labels: Election 2008
posted by Diane at 4:16 AM
1 Comments:
Thanks again for an interesting round-up of articles.
Barone is infuriating--could he not have pointed out that the US MCM* simply does not cover issues? Often not reality or facts either?
Dammit, Barone. The Dem candidates, at least Edwards and Hillary have well-presented policies, which can be read--but the press basically ignores them in favor of some horserace with the handicaps supplied only by the MCM.
*MCM--Mainstream Corporate Media
(And I need a little settee-sized chair for working at the computer--my big boy cat wants sit alongside me and there's not quite enough room. Do office stores sell cat and human sized desk chairs?)
jawbone
Post a Comment
<< Home