It's the F*ing Questions, Stupid.
Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 08:13:13 PM PDT
So here's a confession. This is the first Democratic debate of this primary season I've actually watched in entirety. Most the other ones were more or less painful, but for whatever reason seemed less significant...What made this especially compelling was the audience questions in the last half of the debate.
You'll notice that all the pundits are quoting the first half of the debate.
There's a reason for that.
As Matthew Yglesias notes:
Wolf Blitzer's main interest is in asking questions designed to put Democrats on the wrong side of public opinion, even if those questions are about things like driver's licenses or "merit pay" for teachers that aren't really under federal purview. Efforts to reframe those questions by putting those topics in the larger context of immigration policy more generally or education more generally are derided as cowardly dodges. The point, after all, is to force a choice -- piss off an interest group, or say something that could be used in a GOP attack ad.
That's why there was that ridiculously empty dust up between Edwards and Clinton. Edwards didn't go into the debate wanting to 'sling mud' and he actually didn't. Clinton certainly didn't go into the debate hoping to be called out on her Kyl Lieberman vote. But Blitzer's highly personalized and individualized 'gothcha questions' made it inevitable.
Keep in mind that the politics of the 'individual' ultimately work against Democratic consensus of any type. For years, decades, for as long as corporate interests have ruled America, the prominence of the 'individual' and the 'personal' over the oft degraded 'political' and 'governmental' --which is to say 'communal' has held sway.
This is no accident. It's orthodoxy--it's part of the culture of conservatism, itself. It's very root and essense. It needs individualized heros. And the process of 'individualizing' responses is what we saw on the stage this day.
Again, look ot the difference in the questions. Blitzer and CNN generally, ask about individual difference, highlight and contrast --try to bring out conflict. Part of this is about 'savvy media' presentation, but it's also about the larger program of elevating the individual uber alles. That's Blitzer's gig--it's what he's paid to do. He doesn't give a shit about anything else.
But when 'real' people ask the candidates question, it's not so they can 'showboat' or 'confess' (the masturbatory high water market of our fetishized individualism), it's so that problems can be addressed and workable solutions actually discussed.
The real people, by contrast, ask about problems in their lives. The mother of an individual ready reserve member wants to know about Iran policy. The mother of an active duty soldier wants to know about military pay versus pay for military contractors. An Arab-American wants to know about racial profiling. Then the candidates explain what they think about these issues.
The voters are curious and want to learn where the candidates stand. Blitzer doesn't care about informing the public about the issues -- he actually objects when candidates try to explain their views on broad immigration policy issues -- he's just interested in trying to embarrass the candidates.
For those who watched, we saw it clearly again tonight. Our pundits get in the way of Democracy. Let the questions come from the audience, let the candidates respond. And let the anchors, pundits and spin doctors, the Dr. Bovaries of our national illness, take a long sabbatical to Pakistan, or maybe some cheer filled vacation in Iraq--where, I bet--there won't be another election for quite some time.
Permalink | 10 comments