Freaky Show

I think you've got to give Ross Douthat credit for mounting a defense of both the ABC debate and the "freak show" approach to politics in general, but I'd associate myself with the rejoinders from Ezra Klein and Ed Kilgore. It's all well and good to say voters want insight into the candidates personalities, but questions like "you once had lunch with a guy who said something you clearly don't agree with what do you say about that and why didn't you refuse to eat with him!!!?!?!?" don't offer any actual insights.

Stepping back, one of the things the progressive political coalition is trying to do in the United States is formulate economic policies that serve the interests of the majority rather than those of a narrow elite. I don't think it makes sense for progressives to whine about voters choosing to vote instead on the basis of policy issues about culture and values -- gun regulations, abortion, gay rights, etc. But it does make a ton of sense to complain about the fact that much of the coverage of campaigns seems designed to deliberately obscure what the policy differences between various politicians are so as to make it difficult for people to assess where their economic interests lie.

Photo by David Shankbone

Comments

"Stepping back, one of the things the progressive political coalition is trying to do in the United States is formulate economic policies that serve the interests of the majority rather than those of a narrow elite. "

Matthew is endorsing Clinton?

Wow. Stop the presses. I misjudged the trust fund scumbag.

Or is he admitting he isn't a progressive?

Either way, it's a blast of intellectual honesty we haven't seen in months from him. I declare a Yglesias award to Matthew.

Posted by Petey | April 22, 2008 12:50 PM

Thanks for this. I agree completely. It's got me seriously worried about what lies ahead.

Posted by southernoregon | April 22, 2008 12:53 PM

I think the biggest mitigating factor on ABC's behalf is that there are just too damn many of these debates. Is there really anything other than prosecutorial questions that anybody wants to ask either candidate? They've said what they want to say. All that is left is hoping your opponent says something stupid.

Is there some issue that one or the other is dodging that some debate question can force to a resolution? At this point, no. The moderators should welcome the audience, ask the candidates if they have anything new to say then say, "Good night, thank you for coming."

Posted by Njorl | April 22, 2008 12:57 PM

As a former Edwards' supporter, I must admit I'm rather embarrassed by Petey.

Hey Petey, HRC said she intended to extend NATO's nuclear umbrella to Israel. Do you think she was talking with Javier Solana at 3am the night before?

Posted by SavageView | April 22, 2008 1:02 PM

Wasn't the crux of the first 20 debates and a good look at their policy positions that there's not much daylight between Obama and Clinton? If that's the case, what's left at this point in the campaign but personality and trivia?

Posted by TW Andrews | April 22, 2008 1:16 PM

Petey: I find your ideas intriguing and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Posted by Curly | April 22, 2008 1:19 PM

A number of people have said that there had already been 20 debates-- indeed, Njorl above says there have been "too damn[ed] many of these debates"-- so the limited policy differences between Sens. Clinton and Obama had already been aired. However, this overlooks several things:

1) Everyone has not watched the 20 prior debates. Last week's debate was intended to be for Pennsylvania voters. Most of the people tuning in probably had not seen very much of the previous debates. Some of the debates took place over a year ago.

2) Most of the prior debates included many other candidates and did not allow for deep or extended discussions of any single issue, let alone a direct contrast between any two candidates. The ABC debate was only the fourth one-on-one debate between Sens. Clinton and Obama.

3) There are many, many issues that have not been addressed at any length, from more visible ones like no-bid contracts and veterans' benefits to more obscure ones like recent events in Kenya and now in Zimbabwe, or the situation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Posted by Brian | April 22, 2008 1:21 PM

Remember - to people like Matthew, it's only a "freak show" when they are doing it to your guy.

When the media is writing freak-show-style stories about John McCain, Matthew is perfectly happy to hype them.

Matthew and the rest of the Left's real complaint, of course, is that the Messiah was - for one night and one night only - not treated like the Messiah. And so they go bonkers.

When the media goes back to its normal routine of kissing the ground that Obama walks on, and printing plenty of freak-show-style stories about McCain, Matthew won't have a single complaint about the media.

Posted by Al | April 22, 2008 1:22 PM

I want to know why David Shankbone can get his photos on this blog but can't get an interview with MattY? Hmmmmmm?

Posted by steve duncan | April 22, 2008 1:31 PM

As Ross Douthat recognizes (and Al doesn't), much of the frustration about the debate was not because Obama was asked non-issue-oriented questions. It was because BOTH candidates were given nothing but such questions for 50 minutes, including asking Clinton to rehash the Tuzla landing and whether she thought Obama could beat McCain.

I do have to say that I thought one of Obama's few strong points in Wednesday's debate was the way in which he "chafed" at the questions. Unlike Clinton, who made it very personal when she "whined" in a prior debate, suggesting a bias against her-- why do I always get the first question? should we see if Barack would like another pillow?-- Obama did nothing of the sort on Wednesday. He objected to the tenor of the questions generally, specifically pointing to the Tuzla question as part of the problem. Indeed, unlike Clinton, who piled on at every opportunity (e.g., William Ayers), Obama expressly declined to make an issue out of the Tuzla issue, stating that every candidate has the right to make some errors, and that they are unavoidable when you're under such close scrutiny all day every day. Obama had a bad night Wednesday on both the process and the issue questions, but he showed a lot more grace in how he handled it than Sen. Clinton did in the MSNBC debate back in February.

Posted by Brian | April 22, 2008 1:32 PM

"..much of the coverage of campaigns seems designed to deliberately obscure what the policy differences between various politicians are so as to make it difficult for people to assess where their economic interests lie"

Perfect, absolutely perfect.

Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama may not be far apart on many policy matters, but the differences are important and should be addressed, not written off.

Posted by zak822 | April 22, 2008 1:56 PM

I've seen that sideshow pictured in your photo at Coney Island and it was great fun. More Coney Island blogging please.

Posted by joejoejoe | April 22, 2008 1:57 PM

in defense of the freakshow ross writes : "I don't think these topics matter just because they’re "symbolic"; I think they matter because they’re personal, because they tell us something (or seem to tell us something) about the psychology of the person we're being asked to vote for."

wft? they matter because they "seem to tell us something?" that's some defense. Seems to me that the importance comes from answers that DO "tell us something."

Posted by dj spellchecka | April 22, 2008 2:21 PM

I for one vote soley based on the position of the Mao button...er, flag pin.

Posted by jim | April 22, 2008 2:30 PM

Al alludes to a favorite conspiracy theory:
"Matthew and the rest of the Left's real complaint, of course, is that the Messiah was - for one night and one night only - not treated like the Messiah. And so they go bonkers"

actually, the abc debate wasn't the only time hillary and obama were treated differantly.
the abc debate was clearly the worst.
i'm not usre why obama backers didn't speak up sooner.
___________________________________________
1) ABC's debate was in a class of its own, with more scandal and non-policy questions than any other. ABC asked the most scandal questions, and both ABC and NBC devoted only half of their questions to policy issues. The CNN debates were dramatically more policy-focused. Here's a breakdown:

Policy Non-Policy Scandal
CNN (1/31) 31 3 1
CNN (2/21) 23 5 2
NBC 24 17 5
ABC 32 14 13

2) Barack Obama has received the overwhelming majority of scandal questions over the course of the four debates, by a margin of 17 to 4.

3) Networks 'balanced' scandal questions to Obama by repeatedly asking Clinton about Obama's electability/readiness.

4) The debate famously mocked by Saturday Night Live was actually very favorable to Clinton.

details here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/20/debate-analysis-abc-asked_n_97599.html

Posted by dj spellchecka | April 22, 2008 2:44 PM

I don't think it makes sense for progressives to whine about voters choosing to vote instead on the basis of policy issues about culture and values -- gun regulations, abortion, gay rights, etc. But it does make a ton of sense to complain about the fact that much of the coverage of campaigns seems designed to deliberately obscure what the policy differences between various politicians are so as to make it difficult for people to assess where their economic interests lie.

Exactly. The voters have the right to make their decisions on whatever basis they want, and there's no sense in griping about it.

But at least in theory, it's the media's role to show the public what's really going on, rather than hide it. If the voters know just how huge the differences are between the Dems and the GOP on economic policies, and they still vote on the basis of God, guns, and gays, then that's their prerogative.

But if they're snowed into believing there's little difference between the parties that will affect their pocketbooks, then it makes perfect sense for them to vote on the basis of cultural issues - and if they do so on account of that snowjob, then that's the media's fault.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | April 22, 2008 3:06 PM

The press coverage of the debate has been pretty uniformly negative, and of course some wingnuts will defend the tactics, since it does damage the Democratic candidates. But you know what irks me is that two other criticisms of the moderators that might appear in the blogosphere never do turn up in the press coverage, good or bad, not even to dismiss them: (1) They'd never treat McCain this way; and (2) when they got to policy questions, those, too, were treated as occasions for conservative spin.

Posted by John Haber | April 22, 2008 3:31 PM

Well said.

Posted by Chris Dornan | April 22, 2008 5:45 PM