Slate's Bizbox
the breakfast table: An e-mail conversation about the news of the day.

Michael Chabon and Frank Rich

the breakfast table
entries
12345678910111213141516
from: Frank Rich

What William Goldman Might Have Done for Al Gore

Posted Thursday, Jan. 25, 2001, at 7:56 PM ET

Dear Michael,

You are so right about this. Every single politician we have--or at least any one of them who aspires to national office--now follows a script drained of any human feeling, original thought, or ambivalent nuance that might somehow convey some element of personal fallibility. Not only is "I'm pissed!" out of bounds, but so is a genuine "I'm happy!" (If a candidate wins an election, he now must praise the voters, the peaceful transfer of power, etc., etc., rather than give even a subtle clue that he just might be thrilled to send that bastard he ran against packing.) Worse, the approved utterances are now all scripted from the ruminations of focus groups, as assembled by pollsters and political operatives. If you're going to use a script, why not at least hire a good professional writer? Think what David Mamet could do to pep up the plain-spoken utterances of George W., or what William Goldman might have done for Al Gore, or what Wendy Wasserstein could do to enliven the coma-inducing platitudes of Sen. Clinton. True, Hollywood itself relies more and more on focus groups to dictate the parameters of big-budget movies and their own (marketing) campaigns--but at least the focus groups are confined to approving or vetoing plot points and haven't yet been given the opportunity to write actual dialogue. (Or at least I hope not.)

It is refreshing to turn on C-SPAN and watch what happens in England or any other place where there's still some spontaneity in public life. But it's hard to see what will bring that vibrancy back to the American political dialogue anytime soon. You'd think that the politicians would at least learn one lesson from the marathon after-election of 2000: Americans were riveted by the election for the first time all year post-Nov. 7, even though they didn't think any better of Bush or Gore, in part because for once the campaign was unscripted and improvised by one and all, from candidates to handlers to courts. But I don't think many Washington politicians learned that lesson; they are too busy spouting boilerplate about how much they love to listen to the American people rather than actually listening to them.

I think this is our final round of Slate correspondence, and I don't want to end on a crabby note. It has been a true pleasure talking with you this week, and I really look forward to continuing the conversation without Microsoft's servers as middleman. First, though, we must survive the onslaught of Super Bowl weekend, something I suggest doing with drink in hand.

Best,
Frank

</?xml:namespace>

the breakfast table
entries
12345678910111213141516
from: Frank Rich

What William Goldman Might Have Done for Al Gore

Posted Thursday, Jan. 25, 2001, at 7:56 PM ET
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Michael Chabon's latest novel is The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay. Frank Rich is an op-ed columnist for the New York Times and author, most recently, of Ghost Light.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Reader Comments From The Fray:




Thank you Mr Rich for bringing up the no tanks in the streets comment repeated by all the talking heads on TV. I too was shocked by it. We should be celebrating because there are no tanks in the streets? We settle for so little. They had an election in Canada recently, with very high turnout(by American standards) modern voting machines, and yes no tank in the streets. The winner was declared within hours. Unlike the US they can be certain that the man in charge was elected fair and square.

Why do the talking heads repeat empty pieties? Healing, closure, no tanks, peaceful transfer? Is it to create a false sense that the system works even when there are signs that the system failed?

--James Lynch

(To reply, click here.)


The news coverage of the inauguration seemed so rote. It reminded me of my local cable access channel, which replays the same prom footage over and over and at odd times. It's odd to channel surf and come across high-schoolers decked out in tuxes and gowns, standing awkwardly on lawns, getting into limos, walking into a dance hall over and again. I'm sure the kids in the video might like the event, and must love seeing it.

So too this inauguration. The hard core Bushies and the hard core Clinton-haters were likely cheered and moved by the whole coronation process. But really. It was so forlorn.

And even Bush's well-crafted--it's a pleasure to read--acceptance speech sounded tin coming from him. Every time he speaks, even when the rhetoric's lofty, I can't help but hear the C- student he usually is, the one who describes or explains things by restating the obvious (I'm a uniter, not divider, and that means I try to bring people together, not push them apart.). I'm so used to circular logic from Bush that I'm edge whenever he speaks.

And too, Clinton's 7.5 minute farewell, it seemed to me, had more oomph and staying power than W.'s 14 minute at bat. So as Rich suggests, W. pales not only because I usually find him dim, but also, in this case, by comparison to Clinton's superior oratory style.

--Nick Carbone

(To reply, click here.)

(1/22)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Over the Line
Harold Ford Jr. | I know what it's like to be smeared by your opponent.
: The Positive in Negative Ads
PLUS » Milbank: The President's Lullaby