Good reads…
Warning…I’m going elitist for a moment.
I would suggest that if political reporters wish to judge candidates by the books they read, then they should base their comments not so much on a simplistic notion of what reading a certain book means (pop-psychobabble at best) as on probing questions about the book based on the candidate’s interpretation. (This, of course, requires the reporter to read the book.)
It seems fair to suppose that many reporters today were not English majors because of the proliferation of journalism programs. So, the idea that writers untrained in criticism are attempting to make political judgments about the character and fitness of candidates, based on judging books the reporters themselves may not have read, is simply absurd. And we can see that absurdity throughout The Washington Monthly article cited above.
We see all manner of undergraduate-level mistakes made by these journalists, such as equating reader intention with authorial intention. Or evaluating the value and interest of a work by its title. Or being overly impressed with an author’s credentials. Or making assumptions about the rhetorical purpose of appearing to read a certain book. (This last one is a particular problem because smart candidates will try to work the system…it’s all about message control, remember.)
Brent Kendall asks: “So what can we learn about the current crop of Democratic candidates from their favorite books?” To which I answer, not very much unless the journalists asking the questions know something about the topics and the books. Otherwise, they risk engaging in pop-psychobabble at the expense of the candidates and the voters.
Okay…back to my non-elitist self.
There’s another fly in this ointment: A candidate might have chosen a book the way many other people do: solely by the title, or on the recommendation of a friend/relative/acquaintance whose description might or might not be accurate.
Also, I’d be troubled by any assumptions made by a reporter, whether the reporter has read the book or not, about a candidate who hasn’t even finished reading the book.
I agree. That ointment is full of flies
If the politicians don’t read the books (and I suspect that few of them do), then why should the reporter? Choosing a “favorite book” is akin to choosing the color of your tie or the cut of your suit. It’s all about image, not substance.
There’s nothing new here. I’d argue that not only didn’t JFK write Profiles in Courage, it’s doubtful that he even read it, but it created an image of intellectual depth that helped propel him into the White House.
You won’t get an argument from me, Bruce
All of politics in the TV age is about image.
Reporters who ask the question are posturing. Politicians who give prepared answers are posturing. And that’s part of my point…we learn nothing from this. I have no doubt that some of these guys do read these things, but, really, since we can’t know for sure, and since the reporters won’t ask substantive questions, the whole book battle simply fluff.
Andrew, as always, very interesting topic you raise.
I just finished McCollough’s biography of Truman (a very sympathetic biography of Truman), which hit frequently on Truman’s amazing consumption of literature — mostly histories. I think this was in part to counter-effect criticisms of Truman’s lack of a college education. But, frankly I believe that one can reap a whirlwind of education if one reads a quantity of good literature. I believe that Truman’s choice of reading material probably afforded him an educational experience comparable to degrees in history, political science and military strategy.
It also represented an intellect that sought out knowledge, experience, judgement and analysis not available to him via other educational routes — a telling characteristic. Perhaps this sort of revelation is behind the current “what book do you read” thrust of modern journalism.
It is, however, as is so much of today’s “journalism,” bastardized.
Asking me what I read in no way tells you what I’ve TAKEN from that experience.
Also, as evidently displayed in the citation, this “quote your book” paradigm by the media is a game virtually without winner, except by the one favored by the “journalist.” No matter what the candidate answers, it is either too phoney, too left/right-wing, too vacuous, too militant, etc., etc. Even, as noted in the case of Bradly, if one refuses to play the game as demanded by the journalists, one is penalized by being labeled “too aloof.”
As you note, unless it is a serious examination of the DEPTH of what a candidate has read, AND the reporter has inner access to a candidate so as to analyze WHAT the candidate learned from his/her readings and HOW it applies to his/her policy/philosophy stance, it is another meaningless ploy by today’s media.
PS.
As quoted in the article you cite, I think this expose of Kerry is truly golden:
“No candidate is going to be successful by being themselves.”
Off post, but that pretty much sums up his candidacy, doesn’t it?
Well Truman’s reading must clearly not have included anything about East Asian culture or history…
I think we have hit on a key problem though… Education. The populous are lacking and so too are most of the leaders. I would reject the assumptions that politicans don’t read books
being a Political Scientist who knows a few politicans that read more than many academics I know.
The problem is what consistutes education or intelligence? Does reading a book? Some of my worst and most foolish students are my best read students. In an age where distance “learning” is on the rise, it seems the assumption is that intelligence, insight, wisdom, education are all tangiable and easily attained objects so long as one has a library card or a Barnes and Noble prefered reader card…
However, it is the sadly lacking combination of experience and social interaction that translates that book knowledge from abstract, isolated witty utterances and thoughts, to “reality” if there is anything that can be labeled as such anymore.
The problem is not that the inquiry lacks depth, it is that the inquiry is fundamentally flawed in its assumptions about knowledge and knowledge building…
Truman DID read history — tons of it. Although I think you might be right regarding East Asian culture (I might be misreading you, and you are linking East Asian culture AND history). (Truman also fits the bill on experience and social interaction, BTW.) I think your point is well taken, tho, that being well-read, minus experience and social interaction, is not sufficient.
I’m not sure what you mean by “best read students” Obviously, sheer quantity is not relevant, as quality is needed; and, thus, a Barnes & Noble or library card is not an indicator of intellectual curiosity.
But I still submit that reading a vast quantity of quality books — on a myriad of topics — is a relevant educational experience.
But I think the previous comment delves into the ability to reason, analyze, etc., which one may or may not be able to develop from one’s reading material. Certainly, a degree (even a graduate degree) does not guarantee that the holder has such an ability (although the odds are higher).
My comment about Truman was referring to the fact that he ignored communications by Father Ho, possibly a huge historical mistake. It was of course an unfair tongue in cheek comment, certainly the McCarthy wave cleaning out all experts with any knowledge of Ho had more to do with Ho turning than did Truman ignoring Ho…
Certainly a graduate degree means virtually nothing… I would agree that reading a lot increases the chance of being ‘educated,’ but that reading a lot alone does not indicate much of anything.
When I say well read I refer to my students who have read a large number of books on the topic of the course and maybe even able to quote those books very well. However, the fact that they have read a lot does not mean they understand or are able to think clearly about what the read… often it only serves to fortify narrow thoughts because they believe that the amount they have read is the key to their understanding of the issue.
Essentially I am saying that asking candidates about what they have read is meaningless not because the journalists do not have the knowledge of the books to explore their meaning in depth, but because having read does not indicate understanding or intelligence. Now the reason it is meaningless is because there are other ways to get at one’s intelligence beyond ‘what have you read’ followed by a ‘critique’ of the politican’s understanding…
Equally problematic is the question of who is to say whether or not someone properly understood what has been read? I suppose that throw this entire thing into a tailspin.