Pigs Fly!

Mark Halperin of ABC says that his entire career up to this moment has been spent hurting America:

How ‘What It Takes’ Took Me Off Course: MORE than any other book, Richard Ben Cramer’s “What It Takes,” about the 1988 battle for the White House, influenced the way I cover campaigns. I’m not alone. The book’s thesis — that prospective presidents are best evaluated by their ability to survive the grueling quadrennial coast-to-coast test of endurance required to win the office — has shaped the universe of political coverage. Voters are bombarded with information about which contender has “what it takes” to be the best candidate. Who can deliver the most stirring rhetoric? Who can build the most attractive facade? Who can mount the wiliest counterattack? Whose life makes for the neatest story? Our political and media culture reflects and drives an obsession with who is going to win, rather than who should win.

For most of my time covering presidential elections, I shared the view that there was a direct correlation between the skills needed to be a great candidate and a great president. The chaotic and demanding requirements of running for president, I felt, were a perfect test for the toughest job in the world. But now I think I was wrong. The “campaigner equals leader” formula that inspired me and so many others in the news media is flawed.

Case in point: Our two most recent presidents, both of whom I covered while they were governors seeking the White House. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are wildly talented politicians. Both claimed two presidential victories, in all four cases arguably as underdogs. Both could skillfully serve as the chief strategist for a presidential campaign. But their success came not because they convinced the news media (and much of the public) that they would be the best president, but because they dominated the campaign narrative that portrayed them as the best candidate in a world-class political competition. In the end, both men were better presidential candidates than they were presidents.

For instance, being all things to all people worked wonderfully well for Bill Clinton the candidate, but when his presidency ran into trouble, this trait was disastrous, particularly in the bumpy early years of his presidency and in the events leading up to his impeachment. The fun-loving campaigner with big appetites and an undisciplined manner squandered a good deal of the majesty and power of the presidency, and undermined his effectiveness as a leader. What much of the country found endearing in a candidate was troubling in a president.

When George W. Bush ran in 2000, many voters liked his straightforward, uncomplicated mean-what-I-say-and-say-what-I-mean certainty. He came across as a man of principle who did not lust for the White House; he was surrounded by disciplined loyalists who created a cheerful cult of personality about their candidate. As with Mr. Clinton, though, the very campaign strengths that got Mr. Bush elected led to his worst moments in office. Assuredness became stubbornness. His lack of lifelong ambition for the presidency translated into a failure to apply himself to the parts of the job that held less interest for him, often to disastrous effects. The once-appealing life outside of government and public affairs became a far-less appealing lack of experience. And Mr. Bush’s close-knit team has served as a barrier to fresh advice.

So if we for too long allowed ourselves to be beguiled by “What It Takes” — certainly not the author’s fault — what do those of us who cover politics do now? After all, Mr. Cramer’s style of campaign coverage is alluring in an election season that features so many candidates with heroic biographies and successful careers in and out of politics. (Not to mention two wide-open races.) Well, we pause, take a deep breath and resist. At least sometimes. In the face of polls and horse-race maneuvering, we can try to keep from getting sucked in by it all. We should examine a candidate’s public record and full life as opposed to his or her campaign performance. But what might appear simple to a voter can, I know, seem hard for a journalist.

If past is prologue, the winners of the major-party nominations will be those who demonstrate they have what it takes to win. But in the short time remaining voters and journalists alike should be focused on a deeper question: Do the candidates have what it takes to fill the most difficult job in the world?

Two big things mar the op-ed. First: the assertion of equivalence between Clinton's mistakes and Bush's. Clinton was a pretty good president, after all. Bush is not.\

Second: missing from the op-ed are two words: "I'm sorry."

---

And there is a third. Halperin writes:

When George W. Bush ran in 2000... [I] liked his straightforward, uncomplicated mean-what-I-say-and-say-what-I-mean certainty. He came across as a man of principle who did not lust for the White House; he was surrounded by disciplined loyalists who created a cheerful cult of personality about their candidate...

Carlyle Group CEO David Rubenstein had a different reaction to George W. Bush:

David Rubenstein: you know if you said to me, name 25 million people who would maybe be President of the United States, he wouldn't have been in that category...

That was the reaction of everybody not on Bush's payroll who has met Bush I have talked to--everybody except our elite Beltway press, that is, people like Mark Halperin.

Comments

[John Emerson]

"The book’s thesis — that prospective presidents are best evaluated by their ability to survive the grueling quadrennial coast-to-coast test of endurance required to win the office — has shaped the universe of political coverage."

I have to admit that I never would have imagined that people could possibly believe this, but it does parsimoniously explain a lot of their other stupidities.

This is analogous to the way that Dem consultants reduce all policy proposals to vote-getting ploys: "The American people just aren't interested in that", etc. etc. (Republicans under Rove-Bush took this a step further, and Rove, their elections operative, gained control over a lot of policy: "Politics in command").

It's gone so far that partisan hacks (Broder, Brooks) with a policy agenda always argue their pet proposals in polling terms -- "The American people want X" -- **even when the polls show that the American people disagree.**

For example, the media referred to Bush as a "popular President" (and used this as an excuse for giving him a pass on substantive policy questions) for something like a year after Bush's approval rating went below 50%.

Some think that Brad overestimates the sickness of the U.S. media, but I think that he underestimates it.

[Glen]

Surely Halperin read about or saw Bush mocking the plea of Karla Faye Tucker just before she was executed in Texas in 1998. Bush then claimed he was running for president as a 'compassionate conservative'. Any fool could discern the true personality of Bush from that single event. Any fool except Halperin.

[SERO]

Yes, Glen. Halperin's piece is just the post-rationalisation of power worship now that the volcano hasn't been quieted, the crops have failed, and the Idol is just about to be felled.

[howard]

it took halperin 19 years to figure out something that someone with a functional brain grasped in 30 seconds: as john emerson says, it explains a lot, although the part it doesn't explain is how halperin still draws a paycheck.

which doesn't happen by accident.

[jnickens]

Mr. Rubenstein is too geneous. If you went to church with Bush, you would never consider putting him on the building committee. If you worked with Bush, you would never consider him for a project manager. If he was your neighbor, you wouldn't consult him about organizing a multi-family garage sale. If you wanted to know where the best strip clubs in Atlanta were, you might ask him.

The Bush administration can't properly plan and execute a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. The reason is George W. Bush.

[bob mcmanus]

Mr Halpering may not know, or be afraid to say what his method implies. Your standard for a President would what it takes to get elected if your electorate was so divided that achieving a majority was very very difficult, and if those factions or minorities were a hair's breath away from violence. Policy would be secondary to maintaining even the myth or illusion that the system was still working.

The historical examples would perhaps be Weimar Germany, or the 1850s in America where Buchanan would not bt expected to "solve" the problem of slavery, but simply prevent civil war.

[leo]

There was a web-site and later a paperback book called, 'sorryeverybody.com'.

It had pictures of normal people, Americans, holding up signs basically appologizing to the world for the re-election of George Bush.

I think a similar picture book might be in order for all those in the establishment like Mark Halperin who took Bush on his own terms.

Note, I'd include the entire Editorial Board of the Chicago Tribune, an embarrassment to journalism if there ever was, who in complete isolation in their "Tower" from sentiment in all of Chicago and the state of Illinois, endorsed Bush for re-election because of "his resoluteness on the defining challenge of our age" (i.e. GWOT).

They've yet to issue an acknowledgment much less an apology for the damage they've done.

See: http://illinoisdemnet.com/node/3110

[wood turtle]

Bush/Gore. That was a close one.

[Exile on Ericsson St.]

You're all missing the point here, and badly, I'm afraid. The 2008 general election will likely pit a competent, organized campaign (Hillary's or Obama's) against a disorganized Republican mess (Rudy's or Romney's).

This is just laying the groundwork for Halperin to say "yes, Rudy's campaign is a mess but...he'll be a better president than Hillary."

How can you not see this?

It's political Calvinball.

[aydınlatma]

yes that's true .It's political Calvinball.