I was reading an article on WaPo when this side column listing on the page caught my eye.
Are Amy and Beto O’Rourke the future of politics?
So I turned to the article. It’s a fluffy puff piece about the wonder of Beto and Amy as a couple, with lines like this:
Then, there’s Amy and Beto. They are at once the most modern and most conventional of the families running for president in 2020
So how are they modern? Well, they use social media a whole hell of a lot. Seriously, that’s this author’s idea of “modern.”
Or:
In life, there are no choices bigger than who you want to be and who you want to be with.
Yeah, I’m absolutely sure that’s the most important issue facing the single mother working for minimum wage. I know that in our family, when our severely disabled son was alive, I spent my voluminous free time thinking about who I wanted to be since that was the biggest choice in my life.
Or how about this?
He proposed on April Fools’ Day, four months after they’d first met. It seemed appropriate. That’s how Amy knew him then and even now — impulsive and puckish
Puckish. Yep, that’s exactly the kind of thing I need to know about a candidate for president!
Look, I like Beto. He’s not one of my 3 or 4 top choices, but he’s right at the top of the next group. I like him more than a number of other candidates.
I loved his run for Senate (and sent money more than once) and thought he had a real chance to beat Cruz, something very few Texas Democrats would be able to do.
He’s reasonably liberal, he’s articulate and passionate, I loved what he said about black women, I like his youth and his energy. He’s an excellent campaigner.
All that’s very good and if he wins the Democratic nomination, I will be out there knocking on doors for him and I’ll even be doing it enthusiastically.
But the notion that he and his wife are the “future of politics” because of something unique and now and even futuristic in the way their family lives is just plain absurd.
In actual fact, they are a reflection of the 1950s straight white middle-class past: Amy, a stay-at-home mother while Beto’s out fulfilling his ambitions running for office, not home all that often (he even says that himself).
Bill and Hillary were far more “futuristic” than Beto and Amy are.
As were my husband and I at that age, creating our family while he worked at a clinic and I was in grad school.
And yet I didn’t think we were unique, alternative or “the future.” We were just another straight white middle class family in which both members of the couple had career ambitions.
None of this is meant as a criticism of Beto or of their family. They should live their lives in a way that works for them. They didn’t write this syrupy article or make the awful saccharine statements I quoted.
This is a criticism of the adulation they are receiving from a wide-eyed swooning media, adulation that has nothing to do with what Beto has to offer us in terms of improving our nation, but simply because he exists. This is yet another chapter in what Vanity Fair started with their adoring article about Beto.
And it’s not just me that feels that way.
Here are a few comments from below the article:
This was interesting, and she seems nice.
Now please would the Washington Post provide equally deep reportage on Elizabeth Warren's, Kamala Harris', Kirsten Gillibrand's, and Amy Klobuchar's husbands? Thank you.
and:
He, still, should run for Cornyn's Senate seat.
I'm glad his wife is nice.
and
WaPo - I now expect you to give equal coverage to the other however-many-contenders there are for the Democratic nomination. Who is Kamala's husband? What does Elizabeth Warren's husband's do? Does Bernie Sanders eat fast food? I don't really care about the answers to any of the questions, and wish these sorts of articles didn't appear in the press, but I don't understand the ridiculous amount of air you've given to someone who appears to be a fairly insubstantial player in a large field of contenders, most of whom have more significant experience and records.
and finally:
NO NO NO NO and NO!!!!
I want to hear ISSUES, not pablum. I don't care if their dog's name is Roosevelt or Rosie. I care what he thinks about the issues and how he thinks he's going to solve the deep problems of this nation.
Look, WaPo, you need to WAKE UP. "Getting to know Beto and his wife" is what's wrong with journalism during political campaigns. Sure, go for a few paragraphs about him and his family. Fine. But not this HUGE and sickeningly sweet and deeply biased take on the guy without a single mention of a single issue.
In my opinion it's bad enough that Beto spends an entire interview gazing at his navel - WaPo doesn't have to do it too.
This kind of attention and coverage from the media is merely a soft, sweet version of the way that the media made Trump a serious contender. They promoted him constantly, showed his speeches and rallies live, let him call into talk shows and let him talk and talk and talk. The media obsession with Trump was like the sick fascination people feel when some horrible accident, full of gore and death, is happening: they just couldn’t turn their eyes away from the scene.
In the case of Beto, it’s love. They just think Beto’s grand and everything he touches is golden and beautiful. Reading this article, I expected wings to appear on Beto and his family members (including the dog) and for them to fly off into a stunning sunset.
I am desperately trying to maintain my objectivity here in the face of this nauseating fluff.
My view is that it is our job to see Beto O’Rourke (and all our potential nominees) as a candidate with ideas, stands, policies, plans and a record; to evaluate all that for what it is, not to resent him because journalists feel lightheaded in his presence.
But it’s extremely hard to ignore the worshipful attention and not have it make me feel sick, biasing me against him.
