The Meta-Go-Round

Sam Boyd notes the media's bizarre flip-flops and double-reversals on the subject of the Obama-Clinton debate spat. The pathology he's identifying is the exact one James Fallows focuses on in the piece I plugged this morning -- a pathological aversion to talk about the substance of things. A decision was made to say that Obama "lost" the initial exchange not because people wanted to say Obama was wrong on the merits, but because they wanted to say he was wrong on the politics. When that turned out not to be the case, the whole machine froze up -- it was like asking the punditocracy to divide by zero.

It's John Edwards' hair all over again. The first votes won't be cast until months from now. Why not cover what the candidates are saying about things and whether or not those things make sense? Why not let the issues play out a little bit and just wait and see who gains the advantage? Whether or not either Clinton or Obama ever intended to establish a sharp policy disagreement, there is an interesting issue here -- should the United States abandon its policy of seeking to "isolate" countries we don't like by refusing to talk to them unless they first meet a series of preconditions? I would say that the overwhelming evidence of history is that this sort of isolation -- as opposed to multilateral economic sanctions, which have had a few successes -- accomplishes almost nothing, and the policy should be abandoned. But it's an important issue and it deserves some coverage.

Photo by Flickr user Allison Harger used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

"there is an interesting issue here -- should the United States abandon its policy of seeking to "isolate" countries we don't like by refusing to talk to them unless they first meet a series of preconditions? I would say that the overwhelming evidence of history is that this sort of isolation -- as opposed to multilateral economic sanctions, which have had a few successes -- accomplishes almost nothing, and the policy should be abandoned. But it's an important issue and it deserves some coverage."

But since Clinton and Obama seem to be on the same side of this important issue, along with Edwards, why would the current spat actually provoke coverage?

I think you do disservice to Fallows' point in citing this as an example. The press has covered this pretty much correctly, as a political positioning issue. A spat without policy substance is likely to provoke coverage without policy substance.

Posted by Petey | July 30, 2007 12:29 PM

Nice to see Mark Twain there in the audience. I guess those reports of his death really were greatly exaggerated.

Posted by James Gary | July 30, 2007 12:34 PM

I'd further note that classifying the media's approach as "meta" is incorrect here. The media has been covering it as politics as opposed to policy, which is the correct choice in this particular instance. But one would have to incorrectly regard the very essence of politics as "meta", (Matthew's general position), to see the coverage as "meta".

Posted by Petey | July 30, 2007 12:34 PM

A spat without policy substance is likely to provoke coverage without policy substance.

The point is, a responsible press would ignore such a spat. It's not news of any significance.

Posted by James Gary | July 30, 2007 12:36 PM

"The point is, a responsible press would ignore such a spat. It's not news of any significance."

I think this is as crazy as Matthew's position. The two Democratic candidates leading in national polls are having a vigorous back and forth about political positioning.

Were the media not to cover it, they'd be abdicating their jobs.

I find the notion that politics is somehow illegitimate to cover to be, to say the least, slightly weird.

Posted by Petey | July 30, 2007 12:42 PM

Re: "a pathological aversion to talk about the substance of things"

But aren't people (bloggers included) more likely to talk about their subjective feelings about a candidate than get involved in a complex objective discussion of issues, and doesn't the media, seeking the lowest common denominator, cater to that? For most people, isn't the way they 'feel' about Clinton and Obama, or anyone else, going to determine how they vote?

And few people, with good reason, believe what politicians say anyhow. "History has tried hard to teach us that we can't have good government under politicians. Now, to go and stick one at the very head of the government couldn't be wise."--Mark Twain

Posted by Don Bacon | July 30, 2007 12:51 PM

Petey, I would agree with you except that I think there is some substance here. Maybe only about 30-50%, but the issue of the fundamental orientation of the next presidential administration to diplomacy still strikes me as important enough to merit some serious attention. Or to put the point another way, the story in this case is about positioning, but is as much about preparing the US electorate for thinking about the world in certain ways as it is about candidates' self-presentation in pursuit of the office.

Posted by Brandon Claycomb | July 30, 2007 1:07 PM

But aren't people (bloggers included) more likely to talk about their subjective feelings about a candidate than get involved in a complex objective discussion of issues, and doesn't the media, seeking the lowest common denominator, cater to that?

Beneath your and Petey's comments on this thread seems to lie a feeling that personality and rhetoric--rather than policy--are the determining factors in choosing a President, and the media should just cover the race accordingly or else risk irrelevance. I'm sure Maureen Dowd and the rest of the kewl kids would agree wholeheartedly with you on this point.

Posted by James Gary | July 30, 2007 1:11 PM

the story in this case is about positioning

No, it isn't. It's about reducing the real issue of whether or not the US should engage diplomatically with Iran to legalistic wrangling about who implied what.

Posted by James Gary | July 30, 2007 1:13 PM

Petey:

I didn't take away that Obama and Clinton see eye to eye on this issue. Feel free to clarify how they in fact do.

Posted by Bill | July 30, 2007 1:13 PM

"Beneath your and Petey's comments on this thread seems to lie a feeling that personality and rhetoric--rather than policy--are the determining factors in choosing a President, and the media should just cover the race accordingly or else risk irrelevance."

The issue is not about "risking irrelevance". The issue is about doing their job.

If the two Democratic candidates leading in national polls were to spend a week throwing bombs at one another without any policy significance and the media decided not to cover it, they simply wouldn't be doing their job.

-----

And a "feeling" that personality and rhetoric are the determining factors in choosing a President is what is normally known as basic common sense.

Posted by Petey | July 30, 2007 1:18 PM

"I didn't take away that Obama and Clinton see eye to eye on this issue. Feel free to clarify how they in fact do."

In terms of the policy issue Matthew wishes were covered by the media, Clinton and Obama seem to be on the same side. Hence there is no angle for the media to cover the substance Matthew wants covered.

Posted by Petey | July 30, 2007 1:23 PM

In terms of the policy issue Matthew wishes were covered by the media, Clinton and Obama seem to be on the same side.

You know this from pillow talk with each, or by some other method?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 30, 2007 1:45 PM

The assembled punditocracy is completely incapable of analyzing whether policies actually make sense or not.

It's not fair to ask them.

What they are very good at, though, is discussing their ill-founded prejudices in very serious tones, often complete with exotic locations and suggested whispers with powerful and insightful officials.

Posted by El Cid | July 30, 2007 1:46 PM

I'm with Petey here. It's a fake dispute.

Clinton, Obama, and Edwards would all break with Bushian foreign policy and engage in much more robust diplomacy. And none of them, not even Obama, would be quick to sit down with, say, Fidel Castro (assuming he weren't already dead, but that's another story.) And none of them, including Clinton, would be opposed to starting negotiations that, who knows, could lead to meetings with those big meanies. Edwards, for his part, has said he's open to peace treaty with Iran--that, as far as I know, is a lot farther than Obama has gone.

The irony is that this is one of the few major issues on which there's actual agreement! On climate change, the size of the military, health care, on the HUGE question of balancing the budget v. social spending--what kind of government were gonna have, there are big differences--differences you wouldn't learn about from reading the media or, sadly, the big blogs.

While Yglesias and Klein do a decent job of talking about the positions of the candidates, the frontpagers at Daily Kos, plus Atrios, My DD et al are doing a terrible job of covering the race, mostly because they're afraid to appear as though they're backing a candidate. Jerone Armstrong and Sirota are admirable exceptions.

Of course, maybe the bloggers don't know where the candidates stand. Chris Bowers wrote this this morning:

"I think the Clinton campaign is doing a good job not letting anyone clearly outflank them on any major issues."

I guess he's been reading Daily Kos and Newsweek.

Posted by david mizner | July 30, 2007 2:09 PM

In terms of the policy issue Matthew wishes were covered by the media, Clinton and Obama seem to be on the same side.

I did say clarify, not restate, but nevermind. Guess I'll just restate that they don't seem to me to be on the same exact side. What the hey I'll even clarify. Clinton seems to favor waiting one arbitrary year (you know, to reaffirm in the world's eyes just how prestigious and unfuckwithable the POTUS is) before meeting with and talking to bad people, and Obama never stipulated that. He also seemed to be less down with "preconditions" being met before we could even have talks, which everybody misinterpreted as saying "Mi casa es Castro's casa!"

Posted by Bill | July 30, 2007 2:14 PM

In terms of the policy issue Matthew wishes were covered by the media, Clinton and Obama seem to be on the same side.

I did say clarify, not restate, but nevermind. Guess I'll just restate that they don't seem to me to be on the same exact side. What the hey I'll even clarify. Clinton seems to favor waiting one arbitrary year (you know, to reaffirm in the world's eyes just how prestigious and unfuckwithable the POTUS is) before meeting with and talking to bad people, and Obama never stipulated that. He also seemed to be less down with "preconditions" being met before we could even have talks, which everybody misinterpreted as saying "Mi casa es Castro's casa!"

Posted by Bill | July 30, 2007 2:14 PM

Thomas Jefferson,

You need to own up to your own degeneracy, and stop projecting your rape fantasies about white woman onto Obama.

What's the matter, Tom? Do white woman (or woman of other races) find your racist Caucasian self repulsive and underendowed? Have white women rejected you in favor of (gasp!) coloreds?

Posted by eltoro | July 30, 2007 2:22 PM

All I know is that I was really upset by John Edwards' comments about "fighting the real enemy" or whatever he was going on about. Are we supposed to have a group hug and decide candidates based on who's a bigger hugger? Real policy debates are what this is all supposed to be about, and if the candidates are either unwilling or unable to discuss their differences, the primary voters are left uninformed about the candidates. I don't want to see us going into the muck of personal destruction, but clearly stating policy differences is a vital part of the primary process.

Posted by James Hare | July 30, 2007 2:57 PM

And a "feeling" that personality and rhetoric are the determining factors in choosing a President is what is normally known as basic common sense.

It's more accurately known as mindless endorsement of the media. If the candidates weren't covered in such a manner, they wouldn't be elected that way either.

Posted by nolaboyd | July 30, 2007 4:40 PM

"Clinton seems to favor waiting one arbitrary year (you know, to reaffirm in the world's eyes just how prestigious and unfuckwithable the POTUS is) before meeting with and talking to bad people"

She said there'd be vigorous diplomacy with everybody from day 1. She's not personally going to go talk to dictator X without good reason to believe there's progress to be made. As far as I can tell Obama agrees - e.g., after the debate Axelrod said so.

"He said that he would be willing to talk," Axelrod explained. "And what he meant was, as a government, he'd be willing and eager to initiate those kinds of talks, just as during the Cold War there were low-level discussions and mid-level discussions between us and the Soviet Union and so on. So he was not promising summits with all of those leaders."

Posted by rilkefan | July 30, 2007 6:48 PM

Media coverage of the campaign is becoming more and more insubstantial. It is frustrating to hear more about what the reporter/newscaster/magazine etc thinks about what the candidates think about the issues than to hear what the candidates are actually saying. It is taking away much of the ability for the public to determine what issues are important to the campaign. This is why things like the youtube debates and blogs are so important. They restore the ability of regular people to get their voices heard about issues which may not get mainstream media coverage. For example, the US’s role in the fight against global poverty would get little to no attention if it weren’t these alternative forums for public opinion.

Posted by Maggie | July 30, 2007 8:45 PM

I don't think it's a fake dispute.

Yes, it's true that Obama clarified that he isn't inviting these guys over for tea, and Clinton clarified that she isn't adopting the Bush/Cheney position that you should never meet with these people.

But nonetheless, Clinton's concern about "propaganda" is a fundamental difference from Obama. Clinton seems to think that the threat of some government we don't like scoring a propaganda coup is so great that it's worth foregoing opportunities for peace (and therefore potentially increasing the likelihood of brave American servicemen and women dying). Obama doesn't believe that.

It gets to a more general point, which is that as Clinton proved with her longstanding support of the Iraq War, her personal political concerns are always more important the lives of the members of our armed forces.

Posted by Dilan Esper | July 30, 2007 10:04 PM

"If the two Democratic candidates leading in national polls were to spend a week throwing bombs at one another without any policy significance and the media decided not to cover it, they simply wouldn't be doing their job."

According to CW, when nominee #1 throws feces at nominee #2, then nominee #3 benefits. This is the first thread in a while you haven't yelled, "Edwards! Sexy!" over and over again, which makes me wonder if you just want coverage of this to help Edwards.

I'd have to agree there is a slight amount of substance to this. However, Clinton seems to want to magnify that, but she only helps herself with the base that votes in primaries if there isn't any substantial policy differences that place her closer to Bush than Obama. Talk about a tin ear.

Posted by Reality Man | July 31, 2007 3:55 AM

"This is the first thread in a while you haven't yelled, "Edwards! Sexy!" over and over again"

Edwards! Sexy! Edwards! Sexy!

Posted by Petey | July 31, 2007 8:58 AM

But nonetheless, Clinton's concern about "propaganda" is a fundamental difference from Obama. Clinton seems to think that the threat of some government we don't like scoring a propaganda coup is so great that it's worth foregoing opportunities for peace (and therefore potentially increasing the likelihood of brave American servicemen and women dying). Obama doesn't believe that.

I think Dilan is right on here, though I don't agree with the rest of the post. What I'd say is, behind Clinton's answer you get a base-level assumption of hostility towards, or at least suspicion of, diplomatic negotiations. If she's breaking from Bush here on negotiating with enemies, its not because her posture towards negotiation is different in kind, only in degree. She's still treating the very act of diplomacy as some sort of concession the U.S. is making, a risk we're taking, by letting ourselves be possibly used for propaganda points.

Obama is approaching diplomacy from the opposite perspective. He's saying, in effect, that diplomacy is something worth fighting for. Its an inherent good.

Clinton is treating diplomacy as a tolerable means to an end, only useful insofar as the risk is low and some reward potential exists. That's the same world-view from which Bush, Cheney, et al operate, though they are incredibly more hostile towards diplomacy than she.

Obama, however, is approaching diplomacy as an end-in-itself, an approach that makes perfect sense given his overall approach to politics in general, which is to dismiss partisan demagoguery and work with those across the aisle. His entire campaign is based around the idea that such an approach is a better way to accomplish anything, be it reform in the health case system, an armistice in Iraq, stability in the Mid East, whatever. That an peace or reform one by partisan or military bullying is going to be inherently unstable and invite reactionary responses.

Its a real difference. While they might actually end up with similar diplomatic efforts, at least at first, its still a very real and substantial difference that ought to inform the voters about an entire worldview.

Just my $.02

Posted by Michael | July 31, 2007 11:23 AM