The Logic of Political Journalism
Gotta watch those pesky politicians ‘cuz you just know they’re out to pull the wool over the people’s eyes. What other reason do they have to run for office? We need a watch dog. Let’s call him the “press.”
Here’s one of the things you gotta watch out for: Politicians who use their own money to run for office. Such nefarious characters are trying to buy an election. Never mind the money they raise from others and use to buy the things necessary to win. That money is clean because it signals an endorsement. That raised money is used to buy the same things as personal money is beside the point.
Here’s an example of this silliness from last night’s Republican debate:
MR. RUSSERT: Another quick question. People observing this race in Florida have been somewhat amazed by the number of television ads you’ve been running. Can you tell the voters of Florida and Republicans across the country, how much of your own money have you spent on this race so far?
MR. ROMNEY: In Florida? We’ll report that on the — on the 31st of January as required by law, and probably not a minute earlier. You’ll just have to wait, Tim.
MR. RUSSERT: But why not tell the voters of Florida and across the country how much of your own wealth you’re spending so they can make a judgment and factor that into their — their own decision?
Question: Why would a voter factor such a thing into a voting decision? Why would a person concerned with political issues, which actually affect his life, give a damn about personal money? Well, I can think of one thing that challenges the journalistic logic: Perhaps a voter might think better of a candidate willing to spend his own money. But one gets the clear impression from Russert’s entire performance last night that that’s now quite where the Sunday morning sage wants to go with this.
Read the transcript. Study the questions. It’s difficult to imagine how such bad questions (i.e. promote contention and fail to elicit information) can be tolerated by candidates and the voting public.
It’s plausible to me that people take big spending by a candidate as a sort of proxy for widespread, strong support of that candidate. Given the restrictions on campaign financing, candidates rely on the financial support of hundreds of thousands of people; failure to raise money generally means failure to persuade people of the value of your candidacy.
However, due to the self-financing exception, it’s plausible to me that people think that Mitt Romney has widespread support that he does not, in fact, have. I doubt that very many people are deceived by this, but it is possible. I would therefore put questions about his use of personal funds in the top, oh, two hundred questions that I would like to see discussed. Not in the top hundred, or probably in the top hundred and fifty, but fairly close. Of course, as Mr. Romney pointed out, we could just wait until the reports are due at the end of the month.
It is surprising to me that the debates are so lousy at so many things. I wouldn’t be altogether surprised by debates that were good television but bad education, or vice versa, or debates that were good at revealing character but bad at comparing policy, or vice versa, but this year the debates seem to be bad at everything and good at nothing.
Also, does it seem odd that the last time that a President really needs to face that kind of gotcha let’s-see-if-we-can-break-the-conditioning confrontation is during the election? It’s almost as if, when a President is governing, what matters is what he (or she) intends to say, prepares to say, and then says, not on what “genuine moments” are revealed by inadvertant improvisation.
Thanks,
-V.
V- Interesting observations– especially re: “it’s plausible to me that people think that Mitt Romney has widespread support that he does not, in fact, have.”