Lawrence O'Donnell and Richard Stengel
Pander, Pure and Simple
By Richard Stengel
Posted Wednesday, Aug. 9, 2000, at 7:01 PM ETWell, I think that's the idea, to seem brave without actually being so. What's the risk, really? Ten percent of U.S. senators are Jewish, yet Jews make up only 2 percent of the population. And these are senators in states that don't even know how to make bagels, I'm talking Minnesota and Wisconsin. Isn't that what politics--or, rather, campaigning--is all about, to seem bold when you are just being practical, to seem idealistic when you are being base, to seem statesmanlike when you are just angling for a photo op?
I saw that somebody did a Nexis search for how often the word "bold" came up in stories about the choice, and the number was in the hundreds. I think the press is just playing into the vanity of the candidates here. To bring up a subject close to my heart, this is a kind of media flattery of politicians.
One of the ways that politicians flatter themselves is to say, "I'm making hard choices," or "I'm giving you straight talk." This also flatters the voters because the politician is essentially saying, "Yes, you have the wisdom and the maturity to understand this." It's a counterintuitive pander, and the press fell for it with John McCain. The Straight-Talk Express, my foot. It was just the Talk Endlessly to Reporters Express, and the reporters' reaction was, "You like me, you really like me." President Bartlet would never pander in that way, would he, Lawrence?
Pander, Pure and Simple
By Richard Stengel
Posted Wednesday, Aug. 9, 2000, at 7:01 PM ETLawrence O'Donnell is a co-producer and writer on The West Wing and writes the "National Affairs" column for New York magazine. Richard Stengel, the editor of Time.com, is the author of You're Too Kind: A Brief History of Flattery (click here to buy it). He was also chief speechwriter and senior adviser on Bill Bradley's presidential campaign. Reader Response from The Fray (to be read after the final entry):
Is Lieberman the Jewish Bill Bradley? No, Lieberman's the male Geraldine Ferraro, another example of liberal politicians' pathetic underestimation of many or most middle American voters' antipathy to women and Jews in power.
--Jake Wimmer
(To reply, click
here.)
Lieberman is not the male Geraldine Ferraro, he's the Jewish Clarence Thomas. And I feel exactly the same way about him that most African Americans felt a few years back: With all our good people out there, he had to pick this guy? I can think of 15 people I'd rather see on the ticket, Jews, non-Jews, you name it. Like most American Jews, I'm not a fundamentalist. School vouchers? Rap lyrics? Oral sex? Get a life. This is not the Friday night political hardball we play at home. I know my peers are drifting right (I'm 32), but there are still some of us who believe in good old-fashioned Jewish family values--human rights, economic justice, equality, non discrimination, peace. You may not see us at the fed dinner, but we're still here. And I don't know who the hell we're going to vote for in the Fall.
--Susan Kane
(To reply, click
here.)
The more interesting thing about this year's VP picks is that there seems to be a shift away from the sort of ticket balancing that usually characterizes this activity. Both Bush and Gore picked men who bring something other than regional or ideological weight to the ticket. The funny part is that this innovation may have originated with Clinton. When ol' Bill picked Gore, we had a ticket with two Southerners on it-- first time ever, I think. Sort of ironic that this innovation has been adopted by Dubya--who is, after all, running as the anti-Clinton; and that Gore has used it to demonstrate his distance from the First Fornicator. Goes to show, though. Clinton is many things, but mostly he was a great political innovator. I expect that VP picks will look more like this year's in the future.
--Bill Altreuter
(To reply, click
here.)
It is bad for us when they conclude that the first question we ask about any news event is, "Good for the Jews"? And especially bad whey they are obviously right. They infer that we care only about ourselves. Stengel, I wish you had started with a different question. I'm more interested in, Good for the Democrats? Good for the Republicans? Good for America?
--Chosen Person
(To reply, click
here.)
To the extent that most people, especially politicians, become less likeable the more you know them, and that Joseph Lieberman's inevitable unlikeability will be associated with Jewishness, it can't be good for Jews.To the extent that his nomination will bring the loony Christian fundamentalists out of the woodwork, they will also become less likeable. This could be good for the country.
--Here All Week
(To reply, click
here.)
[Notes from the Fray Editor: Before we leave politics for more important "Breakfast Table" issues, Terry B says "Bring back the Mendelsohns. We have a Jewish VP candidate! We have a Republican VP candidate with a lesbian daughter! Who better to discuss and analyze what's happening than Jennifer and her brothers?" Another contributor suggested Donny and Marie Osmond as equally suitable siblings, but we think that's a joke.
And still with BT admin issues, there was a bit of a rumble about the timings and length of the various contributions this week: Dan Daly suggested "Midnight Snack Table" might be a more appropriate title, and "...paid by the word?..." and "what time do you call this?" were heard down there in The Fray. Posters have a proprietary air with the "Breakfast Table" and they know what is due to them.
There was some discussion of West Wing and President Bartlet (and no, that's not politics, it's TV). Richard Green says: Don't diss the bagels of Wisconsin. He and another poster named Bagels Forever of Madison as the place to go.
And your Fray Editor loved the rather esoteric post that said "that Italian wooden pencil holder is really ugly". Only really keen Slate readers will know what that one means...]
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
SPONSORED CONTENT
Reader Response from The Fray (to be read after the final entry):
Is Lieberman the Jewish Bill Bradley? No, Lieberman's the male Geraldine Ferraro, another example of liberal politicians' pathetic underestimation of many or most middle American voters' antipathy to women and Jews in power.
--Jake Wimmer
(To reply, click here.)
Lieberman is not the male Geraldine Ferraro, he's the Jewish Clarence Thomas. And I feel exactly the same way about him that most African Americans felt a few years back: With all our good people out there, he had to pick this guy? I can think of 15 people I'd rather see on the ticket, Jews, non-Jews, you name it. Like most American Jews, I'm not a fundamentalist. School vouchers? Rap lyrics? Oral sex? Get a life. This is not the Friday night political hardball we play at home. I know my peers are drifting right (I'm 32), but there are still some of us who believe in good old-fashioned Jewish family values--human rights, economic justice, equality, non discrimination, peace. You may not see us at the fed dinner, but we're still here. And I don't know who the hell we're going to vote for in the Fall.
--Susan Kane
(To reply, click here.)
The more interesting thing about this year's VP picks is that there seems to be a shift away from the sort of ticket balancing that usually characterizes this activity. Both Bush and Gore picked men who bring something other than regional or ideological weight to the ticket. The funny part is that this innovation may have originated with Clinton. When ol' Bill picked Gore, we had a ticket with two Southerners on it-- first time ever, I think. Sort of ironic that this innovation has been adopted by Dubya--who is, after all, running as the anti-Clinton; and that Gore has used it to demonstrate his distance from the First Fornicator. Goes to show, though. Clinton is many things, but mostly he was a great political innovator. I expect that VP picks will look more like this year's in the future.
--Bill Altreuter
(To reply, click here.)
It is bad for us when they conclude that the first question we ask about any news event is, "Good for the Jews"? And especially bad whey they are obviously right. They infer that we care only about ourselves. Stengel, I wish you had started with a different question. I'm more interested in, Good for the Democrats? Good for the Republicans? Good for America?
--Chosen Person
(To reply, click here.)
To the extent that most people, especially politicians, become less likeable the more you know them, and that Joseph Lieberman's inevitable unlikeability will be associated with Jewishness, it can't be good for Jews.To the extent that his nomination will bring the loony Christian fundamentalists out of the woodwork, they will also become less likeable. This could be good for the country.
--Here All Week
(To reply, click here.)
[Notes from the Fray Editor: Before we leave politics for more important "Breakfast Table" issues, Terry B says "Bring back the Mendelsohns. We have a Jewish VP candidate! We have a Republican VP candidate with a lesbian daughter! Who better to discuss and analyze what's happening than Jennifer and her brothers?" Another contributor suggested Donny and Marie Osmond as equally suitable siblings, but we think that's a joke.
And still with BT admin issues, there was a bit of a rumble about the timings and length of the various contributions this week: Dan Daly suggested "Midnight Snack Table" might be a more appropriate title, and "...paid by the word?..." and "what time do you call this?" were heard down there in The Fray. Posters have a proprietary air with the "Breakfast Table" and they know what is due to them.
There was some discussion of West Wing and President Bartlet (and no, that's not politics, it's TV). Richard Green says: Don't diss the bagels of Wisconsin. He and another poster named Bagels Forever of Madison as the place to go.
And your Fray Editor loved the rather esoteric post that said "that Italian wooden pencil holder is really ugly". Only really keen Slate readers will know what that one means...]