I'll Just Say He's Right and Leave It At That

This Mark Halperin op-ed is really stunning. I'm glad I've got a long car ride in my future this afternoon, because maybe it'll give me the opportunity to really process why and how this is happening. At a first glance, though, while it's certainly possible to join Robert Farley in slamming Halperin's preposterous notion of "underdog" (such that Bill Clinton in 1996 qualifies) and his goofy equivalence between Bill Clinton's tragic flaw (blowjob!) and George W. Bush's (massive death and destruction; torture; financial crises) or to join Alex Massie in noting the stunning chutzpah and hypocrisy of it all, it should be said that Halperin's fundamental point is correct.

His op-ed says that the media has been dominated by the presumption that campaign coverage should be focused primarily on making judgments about politicians' campaigning savvy, that the reason the media does this is an assumption that the skills it takes to run a savvy campaign are the skills that it takes to run the country well, and that these presumptions are false and should be abandoned.

Halperin is a little late to the party. And by "a little" I mean "a lot." Go read James Fallows' old article about why the media sucks. But, whatever, if Halperin wants to come over to the side of light, I think we should take him.

Comments

I'm afraid the Krug-man has a good follow-up to this one.

On coming across
Why I’m not a proper political journalist:

In his op-ed today, Mark Halperin describes George W. Bush during the 2000 campaign as follows:

He came across as a man of principle who did not lust for the White House; he was surrounded by disciplined loyalists who created a cheerful cult of personality about their candidate.

Meanwhile, I didn’t do the up-close-and-personal stuff; I looked at what he actually said about policy. And from my point of view he “came across” as someone who lied, systematically and consistently, about taxes and Social Security. I did notice the cult of personality — but it scared me:

This suggests a terrible prospect. Soon we may have a president who lost the popular vote, who won the electoral vote only after bitter controversy, who needs to act with unprecedented humility and discretion to avoid ripping the country apart. But he will have surrounded himself with obsequious courtiers.

But you see, I’m just a shrill Bush-basher; we should leave judgments about character up to the professionals who thought Bush was a bluff, honest guy you’d like to have a beer with.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/opinion/25halperin.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Sorry, I tried to embed, but it's rejected.

Posted by El Cid | November 25, 2007 10:19 AM

But in the short time remaining voters and journalists alike should be focused on a deeper question: Do the candidates have what it takes to fill the most difficult job in the world?

The fundamental problem is that Halperin, et al, as El Cid's post above makes abundantly clear, simply are not qualified to answer this question.

Matt's first mistake is to grant people like Halperin any presumption of honesty & good faith. This is probably preparatory to the destruction of HRC or Edwards or Obama, and the calm decision that Rudy or Romney are not the best campaigners but would make the best Presidents.

Posted by bob mcmanus | November 25, 2007 11:18 AM

Halperin presumes that we actually could have an ineffective president with the inception of modern media coverage, the 24 hour news cycle, and now the echolalia of the blogosphere. Name one. Kennedy kept his affairs out of the press--good luck with that now. Johnson--body bags did him in, despite his notable skill as a dealmaker. Nixon--meet Bob Woodward. Ford--meet Chevy Chase. Carter--counting the days of the hostage crisis on the nightly news did not help. Bush I--this is a supermarket scanner, this is how the other half lives. Clinton--meet Monica Lewinsky. Bush--meet Josh Marshall. Maybe only Reagan, the actor, understood the media. Not to praise his presidency, so much as to point out that only Reagan was able to govern despite it. So Halperin's point that the media has ruined politics by focusing on the campaign skills of the candidate rather than the governing skills of the president is backwards. Arguably Gore would have been a better president for america (at least we would not be in iraq), but read the vanity fair article about the coverage of his campaign, the serious mischaracterizations that were made of him that became the narrative (that he exaggerated, etc. these were media fabrications, don't take it from me read the article). The fact is that coverage ruins the presidency as well. Halperin is right about the idea that campaign skills are not necessarily a sign of whether a great candidate will as president still be able to control the narrative. The point is, in this day and age, the ability to control the debate, set the agenda, control the tone and tempo of the debate is a quintessential skill of good leadership--it always has been. Hell, Henry V is an disquisition on the topic. The Bush people are better at this than they get credit--it's just that there policies are impossible to defend. But the next successful president will have to have more than good policies, he or she will have to beat the media at their own game, and shape their own message. The campaign websites, factcheck sites, video, fundraising all have the potential to recast the relationship between media, pols, and the people. Halperin's op-ed might be an inchoate acknowledgment of the coming change.

Posted by JC | November 25, 2007 11:27 AM

It's important to see Halperin's piece for what it is: an excuse to trash Hillary despite her superior campaigning skills. In fact, whoever wins the Democratic nomination -- Edwards, Obama or Hillary -- will likely prove to be a superior campaigner to whoever wins the Republican nomination -- Giuliani or Romney What Halperin is doing here is laying the groundwork for his own and others' inevitably pro-Republican coverage of the 2008 general election.

We've spent much of our political lives being told that distinguished, accomplished Democratic candidates such as Gore and Kerry deserved to lose to do-nothing dolts like George Bush because the dolts were better campaigners. Now that the the shoe's on the other foot, and we're facing an election where a well-oiled Democratic machine will face a disorganized, undisciplined Republican mess (especially if the candidate is Rudy Giuliani), Halperin has decided to change the rules midgame.

This is political Calvinball; and just as the most important rule in Calvinball is that Calvin always wins, the most important rule of this game is that the Republicans always win.

It's really that simple.

Posted by Exile on Ericsson St. | November 25, 2007 11:41 AM

I'm afraid mcmanus and Exile are right, Matt. It's Calvinball, indeed.

Posted by porgy tirebiter | November 25, 2007 12:05 PM

Halperin's so full of it in so many ways. Who really believes that he believes that the reason the MSM cover the campaign only from the prospective of the "horse race" because if you run a successful campaign it's some kind of magic indicator of future success as president? Bull feathers! They cover the horse race because they're on the phone daily with the trainer and the jockey.(Campaign consultants, media buyers, press people) Our MSM is a flabby, lazy bunch and horse race coverage makes for easy to "report" material. No trouble with understanding complicated issues like a candidate's health care proposals and actually reporting them to the public with any insight or clarity.

Posted by Al23 | November 25, 2007 12:12 PM

i'm basically with bob mcmanus as well: it took mark halperin, by his own admission, 19 years to grasp a point that should have been obvious in 30 seconds.

this makes halperin an idiot, regardless of whether we grant him a presumption of honesty and good faith.

the question is how did an idiot get a position of prominence in our media? it didn't happen by accident, that's for sure....

Posted by howard | November 25, 2007 12:28 PM

Halperin asks "...what do those of us who cover politics do now?" We know what Halperin will do. He'll consume the scraps fed to him by GOP opposition research shops and take his cues from Matt Drudge. That way he can be out of the office by 10:30 A.M. almost every day.

Posted by jnickens | November 25, 2007 12:35 PM

Didn't Mark Halperin once say that "Drudge rocks our world?"

Posted by Hank Essay | November 25, 2007 12:46 PM

Didn't Mark Halperin once say that "Drudge rules our world?"

Why are we paying attention to him again?

Posted by Hank Essay | November 25, 2007 12:47 PM

I'm with the "it's unlikely Halperin could have believed anything so stupid" crowd-- the goal of a political campaign is to win-- and do so by highlighting the candidate's strengths while concealing his or her weaknesses. The things that the candidate will actually have to do, once elected, are governed by fate and happenstance, and not by strength of will or desire.

Posted by MattF | November 25, 2007 12:52 PM

I think the basic problem is that reporters don't know anything about policy (apart from the odds-and-ends science beat folks, etc.). What they understand is competition.

They went from undergrad (student newspaper) to j-school to "reporting," and what they learned is that campaign horse-race is easy and sounds prescient. And prescience -- or at a minimum presumptive "insider" knowledge -- is the E-ticket to national, which is what they all want to do. Nobody wins a Pulitzer covering the mayoral race in French Lick, Indiana.

(As an aside, I was reading a biography of Mike Royko the other day, and I was struck by the fact that he steadfastly refused until the last years of his career to discuss national -- or even state -- politics in his columns, because he didn't feel he knew enough to do so.)

Since that superficial upper-down/winner-loser frame is all they understand, there's no hoping that this will change.

Posted by Hemlock for Gadflies | November 25, 2007 12:53 PM

There should be bigger targets for Matt's brilliance and wit than a certified resident of Republicans' asses.

Posted by gregor | November 25, 2007 12:54 PM

Shorter Mark Halperin:

If you think about it, a president with an approval rating of 32% is NO LESS POPULAR than a president with an approval rating of 58%.

Posted by PDX Pete | November 25, 2007 12:59 PM

Hemlock for Gadflies has it exactly right. The problem with the media (if one can speak of a singular "problem") is that its culture is fundamentally anti-intellectual. It's all about the rat-race: make it into Harvard, or Stanford, or Williams; rise to the editorship of student newspaperdom via various shenanigans, legitimate and otherwise (I remember a certain editor at my alma mater who was installed in her position because she was a more powerful editor's girlfriend. She rose even further subsequently). The pattern is set, and it continues throughout life, proving the dictum that life essentially is on re-run after senior year in high school.

Posted by Ben Cronin | November 25, 2007 1:04 PM

About the media's horserace/campaign skills obsession. Back in 1980, a standard media line was that Carter was a good campaigner but a bad president. Then he lost to Reagan, and suddenly he wasn't a good campaigner anymore.

Posted by Kyle | November 25, 2007 2:17 PM

As Mr. McManus stated above, "Matt's first mistake is to grant people like Halperin any presumption of honesty & good faith."

That's really the whole story.

Posted by Carl from L.A. | November 25, 2007 2:40 PM

The basic narrative of the American media is the melodrama. The Republicans have taken this melodrama and elevated it to a political ideology.
No wonder the media is Republican. They were made for each other.

Posted by Mooser | November 25, 2007 2:56 PM

I often wonder what, in monetary terms, the services rendered to the Republicans by the media would be worth. How many billions of dollars worth of discourse-degrading publicity services the Repubs have received free, just for making their ideology congruent with the narrative of melodrama dispensed by the media.

Posted by Mooser | November 25, 2007 3:17 PM

Hemlock for Gadflies: I think the basic problem is that reporters don't know anything about policy

You don't have to know anything about policy to know that some plans are nuts, such as John Edwards' semi-open borders plan. Yet, I haven't seen a single reporter asking him even basic follow-up questions, nor have I seen any reporters seeking out policy experts who could point out problems (via the "some say..." trick).

If you want to undercut the MSM and have a real discussion of policy, support this plan. Unfortunately, I don't expect too many takers from here since having a real discussion - with questioning from people representing all sides of an issue - is the last thing the Democratic Party wants.

Posted by TLB | November 25, 2007 3:27 PM

You really really need to read some Daily Howler, for remedial education.

In the meantime, like a passerby trying to do CPR from watching ER, here's my attempt to set it right with you...

The media follows narratives about character that nearly always favor republicans and their issues over democrats and their issues. The horserace coverage, beside being cheap, gives them a chance to talk about any superficial thing they want and project their deeply freudian narratives in the easiest possible way.

My best effort. I can't make you read and learn from the as-it-occured history documented at the holwer, but if you actually care, and I think you do, you really need to under stand that issue.

Posted by Chuck | November 25, 2007 3:43 PM

About Halperin's 'underdog' claim: it's basically true for Clinton in '96, less so for Bush in 2004 although Bush was clearly vulnerable. The "narrative" of the 1996 Clinton Re-elect story begins in late 1994 and early 1995. At that time, Clinton had a disapproval rating of 51%. The conventional wisdom in Washington at the time was that Clinton appeared to be a one-termer. Indeed, the '96 Clinton Re-elect story is basically the story of Clinton's comeback from political near-death via a ruthless (some speculate Hillary Clinton-led) re-tooling of his political and policy operations to co-opt GOP policy momentum emerging from the '94 mid-terms, and to make them pay politically for their extreme partisanship and rhetorical overreach.

Posted by dry_fish | November 25, 2007 4:08 PM

Also, Halperin gets the 'thesis' of "What It Takes' fairly wrong: the book makes no normative judgment whatsoever about what makes for a good president. There's relatively little policy discussion in the book, and it doesn't cover any of the actual Bush I administration. The reason the book is titled "What It Takes" is because it attempts to be a discovery and analysis of the characteristics (psychological, emotional, intellectual, moral, communicative) that allow someone to emerge victorious in the "Battle Royal" competition for the most powerful office in the Free World.

So, Halperin's blame is misplaced. A better target would be Teddy White's Making of the President series.

Posted by dry_fish | November 25, 2007 4:24 PM

Even if we don't "take" him, the obsequious Charlie Rose will always fawn all over this zero-intellect.

Posted by della Rovere | November 25, 2007 5:46 PM

"So, Halperin's blame is misplaced. A better target would be Teddy White's Making of the President series."

I'm a big fan of the Teddy White books, of Ben Cramer's book, and of the better modern political reporters like Halperin.

The following dry_fish comment is a good encapsulation of where Matthew's entire worldview goes badly off the tracks:

Also, Halperin gets the 'thesis' of "What It Takes' fairly wrong: the book makes no normative judgment whatsoever about what makes for a good president. There's relatively little policy discussion in the book

Policy matters, but politics matters too.

If I were to wake up from a coma and try to compare John Edwards to Hillary Clinton based solely on their published policy positions, I wouldn't be able to form a clear preference between the two.

But being President is a job that has a crucial dimension beyond policy. That dimension is called "politics". And the weird strain of thought in the lefty blogosphere, nicely personified by Matthew, that deems politics irrelevant is the enemy of achieving progressive policy.

Posted by Petey | November 25, 2007 7:45 PM

And I'll note that while I'm using dry_fish to make my point, I think his comments here are pretty sharp.

Posted by Petey | November 25, 2007 7:48 PM

And the weird strain of thought in the lefty blogosphere, nicely personified by Matthew, that deems politics irrelevant is the enemy of achieving progressive policy.

And the weird strain of thought among media-savvy commenters --nicely personified by Petey--that equates "politics" with the high-school popularity contest that is the MSM's sole model of American government is the enemy of achieving any effective policy.

Posted by James Gary | November 25, 2007 8:29 PM

"...that equates "politics" with the high-school popularity contest..."

Don't knock the importance of popularity contests in terms of setting policy.

Lefties have been losing more elections than we win for the past 40 years. There are multiple reasons for that, but the low esteem held for "popularity contests" by lefties compared to righties is high up on the list.

We don't determine the nation's policy course by holding debates between Paul Krugman and David Brooks. We determine the nation's policy course by holding elections.

If you want progressive policy, you've got to have progressives winning elections.

Posted by Petey | November 25, 2007 8:45 PM

Dear God, does Petey still comment here?

I can't figure out if he's genuinely idiotic or the best spoof this side of DougJ.

Posted by Exile on Ericsson St. | November 25, 2007 9:23 PM

petey notices that besides policy, politics matter too.

However, if someone titles himself "political analysts", should his job be to amplify politics, or policy? Halperin now admits mea culpa for paying too much attention to "character traits" that make a good campainer as opposed to "character traits" that make a good administrators, while in the same time revealing total inability to judge character traits of any kind. But at least he refrains from commenting on policies.

How could anyone obtain impression that "Bush came across as a man of principle who did not lust for the White House"? Bush came across as an inarticulate mediocrity, and he had compiled an ample record as an inarticulate mediocrity. Additionally, he revealed an utter disregard for facts, which also told something about his character.

Halperin starts by being very vague about his "wrong judgments about character", and totally vague how he will correct it. An example involving some current (or even past) campaigns could help, but characteristically, none is provided.

Posted by piotr | November 25, 2007 10:00 PM

"How could anyone obtain impression that "Bush came across as a man of principle who did not lust for the White House"?

Read the construction of that sentence carefully within the whole paragraph.

When George W. Bush ran in 2000, many voters liked his straightforward, uncomplicated mean-what-I-say-and-say-what-I-mean certainty. He came across as a man of principle who did not lust for the White House; he was surrounded by disciplined loyalists who created a cheerful cult of personality about their candidate.

Halperin isn't saying 'I thought Bush was a man of principle.'

He's saying 'Bush came across as a man of principle in the eyes of the voters'

He's covering the electoral politics of a WH campaign where both campaigns seek to create certain narratives.

And Halperin's mea culpa isn't that he was insufficiently able to peer into the soul of Bush in 2000.

His mea culpa is in disavowing pure worship of campaign tactical dominance as a predictor of Presidential wisdom.

Posted by Petey | November 25, 2007 10:25 PM

I understand you were in a hurry, Matt, but this is embarrassing. Please revisit.

Posted by Ellen1910 | November 25, 2007 11:13 PM

Just listening to ex-priest and computer security consultant Richard Theime today at a DefCon talk (in MP3 format.)

He points out that people securing the IT networks of the world need to know WHO they are securing them FOR and what those networks are being used for. Because even though you think you know who you're working for, you really don't. He cites Bechtel as being basically "Ernst Stavro Blofeld" from the James Bond movies.

The same applies to the media. The media, as Hitler said in "Mein Kampf" back in the 1920's, and as Aleister Crowley said back in the 1800's, works for the "Establishment".

So do politicians.

So you guys are wondering why the media is in cahoots with the politicians to screw everybody else?

They're working for and being paid by the same people.

So is Matt. Only he doesn't get it yet, apparently. It will be interesting to see what he does when he does get it. Sell out, probably, if he hasn't already. Trust me, his mentor, Josh Marshall, gets it.

As Upton Sinclair once said, "It is hard to get a man to understand something if his living depends on him not understanding it."

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 26, 2007 1:41 AM

2000 was not about horse race coverage, it was about horse face coverage.

Joe Lieberman spoke PR swill to power. It was supposed to be about dubya stealing the vote, ignoring reality, and delivering Congress back to the Dems two years later after everyone profited off the major tax bracket cuts for the top in the millionaire boys club known as the Senate.

Something happened along the way, and the Aug.6th memo changed everything...

El Cid slams it shut with his summary.

Most of the comments to the lower half are pure boulderdash. It's time for the media to finally be accusatory and inquisitive, now that a Democrat is up to bat. You guys won't fail John Q.Public this time, Kenneth Starr is going to be on the talk circuits?

You want to go process on me now?

Perhaps Dubya can soliloquy us on our shortcomings to his clear bold, resolute, moral clarity and inspired vision for staying the course? Now watch this drive. God's telling me to bomb Iran now.

What will we say, rally around the banner, alongside Guiliani?

Bush never came across as a man of principle to the people, six other states had vote counting tabulation misgivings in 2000. Huckabee's wife helped block legal votes in Little Rock as a poll watcher, Indiana and Arizona had software misgivings, other states had vote tabulation issues the band played on...

Enron jets flew GOP staffers to Dade Co. courthouse for a coup and America watched. The media reshaped its narrative.

The Night of the Long Knives occurred well before then. The Truth was the First Casualty of the 2000 campaign.

Posted by Mr.Murder | November 26, 2007 3:56 AM

Gore actually went into Viet Nam, granted he didn't stay long.

Dubya went where? Snorted what?

He failed business deals and was given a pass on SEC fraud?

Could he even drive a car or run a baseball team without scandal and public funds/property mis-allocated?

The truth is just a bike ride away if you think Halperin has an honest bone in his form. The media is a kingdom intellectual invertebrates.

Posted by Mr.M | November 26, 2007 4:11 AM

Useful post, many sharp comments.

Worth The Whole Thing: the link to Fallows' wonderful article. Just as good now as it was when he wrote it.

Posted by Robert Powell | November 26, 2007 9:43 AM

As noted above, Halperin's embraced Drudge. In a sane world, that would be like a politician kissing up to bin Laden.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | November 26, 2007 10:11 AM

I'm beginning to wonder if Mark Halperin has what it takes to be a pundit.

Posted by Jon Swift | November 26, 2007 12:33 PM

Will Roger's old but useful quote is that "no man is worse than the one who elected him" and Pogo's equally useful standard is that "we have met the enemy and he is us". Let's understand that Cramer (whose book was thick and juicy all those years ago) and Halperin (didn't he co-write last years's thick and juicy 'what it takes'-like election book du jour and wasn't it fun to read too?) aren't the problem as much as we all are. We like big messy juicy gossipy fun election cycles and we like play-off games with lots of lead changes and a few flagrant fouls or fights and we like corny commentators as much as corny play-by -play guys and its fun to accuse them of being homers or wondering if its all fixed: Democracy and families and cooking is messy and its going to keep being messy.

Posted by Michael | November 26, 2007 1:01 PM

Will Roger's old but useful quote is that "no man is worse than the one who elected him" and Pogo's equally useful standard is that "we have met the enemy and he is us". Let's understand that Cramer (whose book was thick and juicy all those years ago) and Halperin (didn't he co-write last years's thick and juicy 'what it takes'-like election book du jour and wasn't it fun to read too?) aren't the problem as much as we all are. We like big messy juicy gossipy fun election cycles and we like play-off games with lots of lead changes and a few flagrant fouls or fights and we like corny commentators as much as corny play-by -play guys and its fun to accuse them of being homers or wondering if its all fixed: Democracy and families and cooking is messy and its going to keep being messy.

Posted by Michael | November 26, 2007 1:02 PM

"He came across as a man of principle who did not lust for the White House; he was surrounded by disciplined loyalists who created a cheerful cult of personality about their candidate."

Basic point: Bush "came across" the way he did because the media pushed this storyline. And they pushed the blather about Gore being a lying, shifty, self-aggrandizing geek. And so on and so forth. It's all very, very old news. But I suppose we can credit the Halperin op-ed for reminding us of the media's massive self-delusion.

Posted by mary | November 26, 2007 1:06 PM

Matt, you've got more honest, more intelligent and better informed people writing in this comment thread. Why are you wasting time and space on Halperin? He's got a terrible track record. Forget about the horse race of punditry and get back to substance.

Posted by sm | December 2, 2007 11:16 AM