EASY TO BE HARD! Its easy to be hard on a candidate when novelists pick-and-choose tales: // link // print // previous // next //
THURSDAY, JANUARY 14, 2010
History makes him sick: Yesterday, an e-mailer offered this comment about our new companion site:
Indeed. We think the story told in How he got there is a truly remarkable story. Thats true of the story in Chapter 1 (click here). But the remarkable point is how many such episodes follow and precede it. In a few weeks, Chapter 2 will jump back three months in time, to March 1999. The events of that month were so bizarre, you simply cant start a book with them.
The vast bulk of the work for the book is done, though some of the story-telling still needs shaping. But we think our country needs a history of the Clinton/Gore era. The story told in How he got there is a ginormous part of that era.
Our pitch for funds thus proceeds apacein a week when theres very good reason to be sending funds elsewhere. At this site, we hope to drive discussion this year about some of the ways our side tends to lose. Over there, we plan to keep pounding out that truly remarkable history.
In part, we think our side tends to lose because weve agreed to bury our history. In our view, American voters deserve to be told what happened during those years.
Ways we all lose: Could Scott Brown win the Massachusetts Senate seat? Actually, yeshe could. To our ear, Lady Collins shows one of the ways our side has long practiced to lose:
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! But then, for another example of imperfect sentence construction, see the text of Maureen Dowds latest column, apparently before it got some editing from some sentence-construction workers (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 1/13/10). But then, we think you know these rules:
In the high aeries of people like Collins, sentence structure is cause for laughterwhen its fumbled slightly, if at all, in the extemporaneous speech of a candidates 21-year-old daughter. (Darlings! She was on American Idol!) When structure is fumbled by Lady Dowd, editors rush to correct the mess. She keeps the Pulitzer Prize.
Collins column isnt likely to move any votes, unless Howie Carr (or some other talker) cites its unfortunate sneering on Boston talk radio today (click here). But this type of sneering has moved votes against liberal/progressive causes for decades now. Similar impulse: No one mocks the small, empty states quite as reflexively as Lady Collins. Manhattan elites have made themselves big/fat/easy targets in this way since Nixons day.
Collins likes to smirk and sneer at her obvious lessers. But how well does she reason herself? In todays column, she offers a SPECIAL RANT which is a masterwork of political foolishness. From this RANT, you would almost think that 90 percent of the population stands in support of the health reform bill. And of course, she cant stop the smirking:
If Carr decides to work from this text, hell cite those funny hats too.
Why isnt 90 percent of the country marching on the Capitol? Could it be because a majority of voters dont seem to support the health reform bill? Lady Collins SPECIAL RANT presents an exceptionally poor analysis. Yes, theres a problem with the way Senate representation works. But if its utter pure nonsense you most enjoy, her attempt to quantify this problem should warm your innards today.
One last point: Lady Collins seems to think that the voters sent a clear, unmistakable message in the 2008 election. But guess what? When it comes to health care, nowe didnt! If Howie Carr can make some hay from her ladyships latest sneering, Bay State voters may show us next week how true that sad fact is.
(For ourselves, we have no idea what will happen next Tuesday.)
Why are progressive interests commonly thwarted? In large part because, for the past forty years, the Carrs have been smarter than the Collinses. The Carrs go after the sneering elites. The elites makes fun of the daughters.
EASY TO BE HARD [permalink]: Here at THE HOWLER, we havent read Game Change, the sizzling new Halperin/Heilemann best-seller. On a first-hand basis, we cant judge its fairness or balance.
But often, pundit reaction to such a book is more important than the book itself. And well admit it. When we read Ben Smiths treatment of Game Change, we incomparably thought this: At least the way Smith describes the book, Game Change sounds like a novel:
In this passage, Hillary Clinton gains in one way; the standard comparison to Lady Macbeth is passed from her to Elizabeth Edwards. But as described by Smith, Game Change seems to offer novelized treatments of its playerssimplified portraits in which, as in Greek drama of old, a long string of central characters are brought down by their personal flaws.
Presumably, these people all have personal flaws. But its easy to overstate flaws, if we choose to type pulp fictionsimplified tales in which we pick-and-choose the incidents we feature. In the case of Harry Reid, a punishing portrait has now been built from one single comment Reid apparently made. On cable, pundits were planning to thrash it all weekuntil disaster struck Haiti.
Is Harry Reid really a snarling racist? Wed be inclined to doubt it. But when you get to choose one comment from a lifetime of deeds and comments, almost any portrait can emergealmost any novel can be written.
Can pundits really type any novel? According to reviewers, an unflattering portrait of John McCain is sketched in Game Changea portrait in which, according to Smith, McCain was brought down by his personal flaws, and probably deserved to be. That portrait may be perfectly fair. But its hard to forget an earlier novel, a Group Novel the press corps typed years ago. During that era, the press corps picked-and-chose its incidents carefully, turning McCain into a Man Without Flaw, a deeply sanctified solon. In November 1999, Richard Cohen typed a definitive account of how this process works:
The column was called, No One Like McCain. In those days, pundit novelists routinely picked-and-chose incidents which showcased McCains alleged high character. They presented all the good things the man had said and done in his life. In the process, they insisted that these selected examples said everything about this great man.
To appearances, that old novel has been abandoned as Game Change perhaps types another. Where heroic incidents were once selected, now we pick-and-choose McCains personal flaws. They show that he deserved to lose. They show a new McCain.
Alas! Its very easy to be hard when we calculate the world on this basis. Almost anyone can be Lady Macbeth if we work in so childish a manner. Lets consider some of the ways Smiths piece drags down Hillary Clinton. Lets consider the handful of (alleged) incidents the new novelists have picked and chosen.
At least, shes no longer Lady Macbeth! But anyone can be cast in any role if we allow ourselves to reason in the manner which follows:
Clinton conveniently scheduled a trip? Plainly, Smith suggests that she scheduled the trip to avoid release of this unflattering book. But alas! Smith suggests this idea, but doesnt quite say itnor does he present any reason to believe that his insinuation is true. This is very silly worksilly work which should have ended on the cutting-room floor. But this is the way our press corps has reasoned its way through its novels over the past twenty years.
That, of course, is a moment from Smith, not from Game Change itself. But lets consider the incidents Smith has chosen to highlight from the new book. According to Smith (see quote above), Game Change systematically hacks away the attributes [Hillary Clinton] spent a decade acquiring in the public eye: humanity, humility, competence. As he continues directly, these are the first examples he pulls from the book. Smith italicizes the passage he quotes from the sexy new book:
In this passage, were asked to think poorly of Clinton because, we are told, she quietly began planning for her presidential transition during the primary. But if Clinton did begin planning at that time, why exactly would that be a bad thinga sign of a personal flaw? In Tuesdays New York Times, an Economic Scene column by David Leonhardt recalls that Candidate Obama began his own transition planning before he was electedand that Candidate McCain accused him of measuring the drapes when he did so. But at the end of his column, Leonhardt suggests that Obama may not have planned his transition quite carefully enough. (The president still hasnt made a nomination for the head of Medicare.) In Smiths passage, were supposed to imagine that Clinton showed one of those personal flaws when she began to plan a transition. But why should we see this alleged conduct that way? Smith doesnt quite explain.
But then, other aspects of that proffered passage dont parse real well for us either. In the passage Smith quotes from the book, we are told that Clinton detested pleading for anything, from money to endorsementsthat she resisted calling the local politicos whose support she needed. Immediately, were offered a portrait of Clinton spending 45 minutes on the phone with someone who hasnt endorsed her! This is an odd bit of conduct from someone who allegedly resisted making such callsalthough it may be the case that Clinton did tend to avoid such conduct. But please note: In many novelized portraits of the past fifteen years, this very sort of conduct has been treated as a sign of a hopefuls good character. Its a sign of good character when a candidate resists such groveling; its bad character when shes willing to do it. Alas! In the kind of silly novel our major pundits most enjoy typing, you can pretty much take any behavior and novelize it any damn way.
Of course, the quoted passage from Game Change performs another service, one thats typically rendered by novelists. The passage takes us inside Clintons head; it tells us what the lady was thinking as she stood on an Iowa stage, with Iowans just gawking at her, like she was an animal in a zoo. (A note from experience: Our hackles go up when a candidate is compared to animals or machines.) Did some source tell Halperin/Heilemann that this is what the lady was thinking? That she found the Iowans diffident and presumptuous? (Iowan voters? Iowan activists? The fellows dont seem to feel the need to sayalthough, by the rules of American novels, it does make a fairly large difference.) Remember: According to Smith, this passage hacks away at the notion that Hillary Clinton possesses humanity, humility, competence. But do Heilemann and Halperin possess those traits? Whatever Hillary Clinton is actually like, this is a gruesome, poorly-reasoned passage.
Truth to tell, its part of a novel. Smith doesnt seem to notice.
("I can't believe this!" Clinton allegedly said. "How many times am I going to have to meet these same people?" But if Clinton actually said those words, had she really just hung up in a huff? Even assuming an accurate transcript, a persons statement can take on many aspects, depending on the way her concomitant tone and intent are described. In this passage, were asked to believe that these alleged statement shows Clintons lack of humility. In a novel, such a presentation, from an omniscient narrator, is pretty much A-OK. But out here in the actual world, can anyone think of a good reason why we should assume that these alleged statements should be viewed this particular way?)
And by the way: Did Clinton actually say those specific words? Did she actually make the statement which appears inside quotation marks? Even if it actually mattered, its hard to believe that the authors know. Was someone taping every call, and every reaction? Or is this quotation-by-recall?
Were Clinton, Edwards, and McCain all brought down by their personal flaws? Did they deserve to be brought down? Its always possible, of course; its fairly obvious that John Edwards was involved in a deeply problematic situation during his run for the White House. But its very easy to be hard when youre basically typing a novel. In the case of McCain, it was also easy to be easyeasy to fawnwhen earlier novels served to sanctify this same, now-badly-flawed man.
Can we talk? In the course of a long campaign, candidates do and say hundreds of thousands of different things! If we get to pick-and-choose a few statements, we can construct any portrait we want. A candidates may say an angry thingthen think better of what she has said. And almost anything a candidate does can be positioned in a hard (or an easy) waydepending on the particular novel desired at the particular moment.
Alas! Over the course of the past twenty years, our press corps has increasingly trafficked in the stuff of the novel. Theyve lovingly picked-and-chosen their incidents to support the tale they want to type. In 1999, they typed a Group Novel about a high sainta sanctified solon by the name of McCain. Now, two writers may have typed a brand new novel, about McCains personal flaws.
This is childish, unintelligent work. But we have a childish, unintelligent press corpshave had such a corps for quite some time.
Novels like these have changed the world. Can your nation survive them?
Tomorrow: For the goose, for the gander
He was there: Peter Daou, a good guy, worked for Clintons campaign. He offers his thoughts in Salon.