It wasn’t my intention to write a fourth item on last night’s Democratic debate in Philadelphia, but the NYT’s David Brooks appears to be the only prominent voice in the country to have watched the train wreck and come away impressed.
I understand the complaints, but I thought the questions were excellent. The journalist’s job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilities. Almost every question tonight did that. […]
We may not like it, but issues like Jeremiah Wright, flag lapels and the Tuzla airport will be important in the fall…. It’s legitimate to see how the candidates will respond to these sorts of symbolic issues.
Brooks concluded by giving out grades. He gave ABC an “A.”
At first blush, Brooks’ analysis might even sound reasonable. It’s not.
“The journalist’s job is to make politicians uncomfortable.” In the abstract, perhaps, but there’s a way to probe “contradictions and vulnerabilities” while remaining substantive. Obama has been evasive on nuclear energy; why not make him “uncomfortable” with some discussion of the policy? Clinton has been misleading about her roles in the creation of S-CHIP and the Family and Medical Leave Act; why not make her “uncomfortable” by scrutinizing her record?
Discomfort need not be an end unto itself. If, at a Republican debate, John McCain were asked about his first marriage, his admitted adultery, his habit of dropping F-bombs on his colleagues, and his dozens of policy flip-flops, he’d probably be pretty uncomfortable. Would Brooks praise the questions, judging them more important than unmentioned global challenges? Somehow, I doubt it.
One gets the sense that Brooks liked the bitter/Wright/sniper/flag/Ayers line of questioning because those were the issues on his mind. This may be trivia to Pennsylvania voters, but darn it, he has a column to write.
“[Symbolic issues] will be important in the fall.” Again, that may be true, but it’s oddly self-fulfilling — a New York Times columnist is telling us what will matter, in large part because he knows what he’ll be writing about, thus making certain issues important.
Brooks cares about flag lapel pins, so therefore, America cares about flag lapel pins. He wanted to see Obama squirm, so America needed to see him squirm.
We are losing a war, we have destroyed our fiscal future, the planet is in distress, we have effectively quit the Geneva Conventions, the economy, propped up by massive public and private debt, is teetering … and we all have to actually defend the fact that this election will be decided on the basis of closet Muslims, flag lapel pins, and ’60s terrorists?
Brooks actually gives ABC News an “A” for their questions. The job of debate moderators is to generate an actual discussion about the issues and questions that matter in deciding between two candidates. They make an editorial choice about what those questions are. To focus almost exclusively on idiotic process questions based on the lowest form of political debate imaginable is an editorial choice to run a tabloid freak show.
Brooks seems confused about what the point of a debate is. He seems to believe it’s about creating provocative television for the political elites. The debate is a game show, and it’s not any fun unless the contestants are sweating, preferably over whatever the pundits are chatting about in greenrooms in DC.
Look, I’m not a total prude when it comes to political theater. I know it’s television, so it won’t be all-substance, all-the-time. I can even appreciate the utility of keeping candidates on their toes with some unexpected, outside-the-box questions.
But last night, substance took a backseat to excessive discussion of trivia and process questions. There were, meanwhile, no questions about:
The financial crisis
The collapse of housing values in the US and around the world
Afghanistan
Health care
Torture
The declining value of the US Dollar
Education
Trade
Pakistan
Energy
Immigration
The decline of American manufacturing
The Supreme Court
The burgeoning world food crisis
Global warming
China
The attacks on organized labor and the working class
Terrorism and al Qaeda
Civil liberties and constraints on government surveillance
The questions were “excellent”? I don’t think so.