December 20, 2003
More on Pundits
A related topic was brought up in Kos thread quoted below, which I thought deserved it's own post here. That is how easy it is for the pundits to mess up and to what extent we can rely on them. After reading an account of John Kerry wowing a swooning group of New York writers and journalists at a private question and answer session in Al Franken's Upper West Side flat, the question comes up--how do the ties between an elite liberal punditocracy to an elite political culture lead to bias?
This is not to say the liberal pundits don't have good reasons for supporting someone like Kerry or Clark. I'm willing to concede that Clark might be a stronger general election candidate than Dean--I don't know, I don't have a crystal ball. But neither do the pundits. Sometimes they don't have a clue, as was evidenced by Alterman's short-lived and outrageously lame endorsement of Kerry. Morever, it is not just that pundits fail to understand ordinary people or even ordinary politicians. Sometimes (and I'm not talking about Alterman here but about "moderates") they are too in love with their own logical skills, their own caluculation. A implicit assumption shared by many mediocre pundits (some of whom are employed by the Washington Post) is that the electorate is a kind of static equation to be solved. Getting elected is essentially clever triangulation--boxing out the wrong minority causes and including the correct majority causes, creating a tasty swing-voter stew.
Indeed, these pundits seem inclined towards a kind of rational choice theory of political action--a nice mathmatical, economic way of looking at things--where all voters know what they want and the winning politician is he that can follow the advice of smart pundits and quickly dash towards the center. According to this logic, the winner is, invariably, he who was closer to the center of the spectrum. Certainly, it's far simpler to be a pundit when those pesky profound mysteries of political strategy and human behavior can safely ignored---things like charisma, identification, fear, and pathos. Who needs all that emotion when we have econometrics?
I would imagine that the most common fallacies of the pundits are those of assuming that either the general electorate is more like themselves than it truly is or that it is comprised of mindless soundbite-swallowers who are easily duped. The truth, as is usually the case, is in between. The issues do count, to an extent. Personality counts much more. It's sad, but an undeniable fact of modern politics. This is something that I think might be very easy to forget if you're aware of most of the facts, care more about issues than personality, and follow politics closely.
I somewhat disagree with you, Michael. I think that among registered voters, charisma and personality would far outweigh issues, but among those who actually vote the gap is much closer. Thus a big job for political advisors, particularly with marginal candidates (read: every dem in this election) is to "get out the vote," hoping that charisma will inspire people to get to the polls.
In local politics, the urgent need to use the political process to remedy a situation is more easily understood and believed in than in national politics. In other words, health care doesn't exactly "rock the vote."
Hmm.. you could be right. Without some sort of survey, it's all conjecture though. It does seem reasonable that those who actually vote would be a least moderately more informed than the general population, but, then again, look who won in 2000.
Rick Perry?
Smart-ass.