I'm thinking about the cozy relationship between the press and the primary campaigns of the various candidates. This topic has been percolating in the back of my mind for several years, but for some reason I feel the urge to work it out just now. What I'm going to say is probably a little bit false--because I'm not an insider either to the press or any campaigns--but I think it's also true enough.
I think the press is too cozy with the campaigns, and I think they distort the nominating process by telling us too much about the inner workings of the primary campaigns. I also think this is a relatively recent development, perhaps even a legacy of the Reagan campaigns and presidency. No, it's not his fault, and both parties are equally complicit in this. But I think Reagan's first campaign staff and the press office in his White House understood better than previous campaigns how to invite the press in and how to make the best use of them. This was probably the inspiration of David Gergen, Reagan's eventual White House Press Secretary.
It certainly wasn't a one-sided relationship. The press saw an opportunity to use its insider knowledge as a way to get an edge on their competition. It also seemed to give them a considerable voice in the nominating process. You can probably see one danger already--why should the press have such a voice? That's not an appropriate role for a free press. But it played to the vanity of journalists that their inside knowledge of the campaigns, and of the effectiveness of candidates in organizing them, gave them a privileged perspective, maybe even made them politically wise. Once the press tasted this heady liquor it was very hard to give it up.
In reality I don't think the press really has a voice in this process, or any insights worth giving us. Maybe later, in the general election, there is something of value they can offer the public about the inner workings of the campaigns. But not in the primaries. Not this early in the process.
The real danger of this journalistic coziness is the way it privileges the better organized campaigns. In Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina we hear too much about which campaign has the fuller staff, the bigger field operation, who is battling uphill, who is the underdog, who is the candidate to beat.
The press annointed Mitt Romney as the person to beat more than a month before the Iowa caucuses. Instantly, everyone else became challengers. And they came and went. The debates were largely shaped by this perception as well.
This was a false perception. Romney had done nothing to persuade the Iowans of his virtues as a candidate at that point. He had raised lots of money and hired the best political talent. But that only means he had persuaded more party insiders. He had yet to show the general public why they should prefer him. And in fact he still has not made a case for this. He will eventually, but not until after his nomination is a foregone conclusion--as it may already be.
The consequence of this is that it is almost impossible for an outsider to make a big showing in the early primaries. Now I say this not simply in order to champion the outsider, but mainly to ask for a better nominating process. If the early primaries were more open, less foreclosed by the wisdom of the press, I think we would have a much more informative deliberative process both in the debates and in the entire discourse of the various campaigns throughout the process.
As it is, the early primaries cater to the extreme elements of either party, and the discourse is glutted with extreme rhetoric about fringe topics. The important issues of the day--the economy and foreign policy--are barely touched on. Instead we hear about preposterous tax policies, insincere calls to slash the size of the federal government, and extreme debates on social issues.
Don't get me wrong, these are important issues too, in their way. But we shouldn't be choosing someone for the most powerful office in the world based on stalking horses like these. Think how irresponsible, even downright dangerous it sounds to fill the office in this way. We need to know how they'll actually govern, not a lot of posturing in which they try to tell us what they think we want to hear. The rest of the world must cringe to see how we actually select candidates. We must seem like an unmoored ship to them, swinging wildly from one extremity to another every few years.
I think the press should back away from the early nominating process. It should not give in to the temptation to parade its "insider's" knowledge of these early stages. It isn't a neutral position. It favors the party insiders, and it distorts the political discussion the process should be encouraging. There will be plenty of time in the process to trumpet their special insights about the organizational prowess of this or that campaign staff later on. It will be virtually impossible to conceal it by Super Tuesday.
But for now, the press should get out of the way the discussion. Let the voters hear what the candidates have to say, even put them on the spot and make them speak their own minds. Stop allowing itself to be the stooge of the party insiders.
CD
0 comments:
Post a Comment