A very Republican Democratic debate

David Brooks offers his take on last night's debate, under the headline "No Whining About the Media." He thinks it was fantastic.

He's in the minority, of course, among the commentariat. But it's easy to see why a conservative commentator would be pleased with the debate (as demonstrated by the veritable glee over on National Review Online last night). First of all, the questions were stacked in such a way that the candidates' answers were chock full of sound bites that John McCain can use to great effect against either candidate in November. (I still Barack Obama's long, rambling, noncommittal answer on the Iran-Israel question may have well and truly lost him Florida.) [UPDATE: In comments, Sean Braisted scolds me for buying into the Florida-as-Israel meme. He's got a point! ... Bad Brendan, listening to Clinton/MSM spin! Bad!]

But secondly and perhaps more importantly, when the moderators finally finished asking things like "Does your pastor love America?" and got around to asking policy questions, they were largely policy questions that Republicans care about, framed in ways that Republicans would frame them. Will you pledge not to raise taxes? How would you change affirmative action to prevent reverse discrimination? Will you still withdraw from Iraq even if the grownups tell you not to? Don't you think gun control violates the Second Amendment? If Iran nukes Israel, will you pledge to nuke 'em back?

Now, there's nothing illegitimate about these questions, as such. (As for Charlie Gibson's fuzzy capital-gains math, well, that's another story.) What's problematic is that they were being asked in a Democratic debate, ahead of a primary in which Democratic voters will choose between Democratic candidates, presumably based on Democratic issues. Issues like, well, this list of topics, created by a Daily Kos diarist. We can nitpick the exact topics, but I mean, really: how many Pennsylvania Democrats are going to be choosing between Clinton and Obama on the basis of who is more committed to keeping the capital-gains tax at current levels? And yet those sorts of issues -- ones that most Democratic voters simply don't care that much about -- absolutely dominated the debate.

Here, I think, is where Republican schadenfreude comes in. Brooks didn't say it explicitly, but the heading "No Whining About The Media" sort of implies it: Democrats don't get to whine about the debate format, because Republicans have been dealing with this crap for years. And it's true, to an extent. Remember the Iowa moderator who kept asking the GOP candidates to "raise their hands" based on their positions on various Democratic pet issues, such as "How many of you believe global climate change is a serious threat and caused by human activity?" That is, at least arguably, just as slanted and inappropriate a question for a Republican debate as "Can you make an absolute, read-my-lips pledge that there will be no tax increases of any kind for anyone earning under $200,000 a year?" is for a Democratic debate. Just as Democratic voters aren't going to be picking their candidate based on who's more "read my lips"-y on taxes, Republicans weren't going to pick their candidate based on who sounds more like Al Gore. I mean, c'mon. They're perfectly legitimate questions, but they're grossly out of place, particularly when they dominate the debate. And that happened in at least a couple of the GOP debates, largely because most journalists are left of center, with left-of-center worldviews, so their natural tendency is to ask questions that start from a left-of-center premise.

That last point raises a puzzling question: what on earth were Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos up to last night? (Again, I'm talking only about their policy questions, not their decision to spend half the debate talking about substanceless nonsense, which is a whole 'nother can of worms.) So far as I know, these guys are not closet conservatives. I mean, Stephanopoulos used to work for Hillary's husband, for goodness sake. And while I don't know a lot about Gibson, I don't think you get to be the anchor of "World News Tonight" by being the second coming of William F. Buckley. Point is, it's not like last night's moderators were some kind of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh clones. So why did they seem like it?

The answer, I think, is three-fold. The first answer is the Brooks thesis: "the journalist’s job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilities." That's a simplistic summary of one aspect of a journalist's job, but it certainly seems like Gibson and Stephanopoulos were focused on that aspect last night. The second answer is the one I alluded to in my liveblog post: they figured all the other, more "typical" ground had already been covered, so they might as well try something new. And finally, they probably figured the old "electability" card -- Hillary's favorite weapon this side of the gender card -- makes it legitimate to ask "Republican" questions in a Democratic debate, since after all, those are the issues John McCain will be hammering them on in the fall. (In that sense, it almost seemed like this debate was more geared toward superdelegates than toward Pennsylvania voters.)

All three answers have some merit. But they're all flawed, too, particularly when you consider that Gibson and Stephanopoulos didn't just ask some "Republican" questions; they asked exclusively "Republican" questions during the "policy half" of the debate. Thus, in the name of fulfilling Brooks's vision of "the journalist's job," they turned themselves into a parody of that noble image. They were cub reporters badgering an interview suspect for the "gotcha" quote that will make the front page of the Post, rather than seasoned journalists trying to get past the bulls**t and tease out the nuance of a complex substantive issue for a lengthy profile in the Sunday Times.

Furthermore, with regard to the concept that everyone had already heard the candidates' answers to the "typical" policy questions, the moderators ignored the fact that this is the only debate in Pennsylvania, the only time these candidates will be widely seen in a debate setting by voters in this crucial primary battle. Nationally, last night's showdown got the best debate ratings yet, and I'll wager it got by far the best ratings among Keystone State voters. Thus, the majority of the people watching in Pennsylvania most likely hadn't heard these candidates address the core Democratic issues in a debate format. And now they never will, because Gibson and Stephanopoulos decided it was more important, and easier, to play "gotcha" and make the candidates "uncomfortable" than to find new and different ways of asking substantive questions about the "same old issues" that, as it happens, are the issues Democratic voters actually care about.

That brings me to the third rationale for asking "Republican" questions of the Democratic candidates: "electability." Now, first of all, I should point out that "electability" is a very iffy concept anyway when the judges are Democratic voters, who conclusively demonstrated their inability to differentiate "electable" from "unelectable" when they saw John Kerry walking down the street one day and decided, "Hey! That guy looks electable!"

But regardless of that, the concept that Democrats (or Americans) will are well-served by a Democratic debate that's dominated by questions Democratic voters don't care about, because the questions serve to test the candidates' "electability," suffers from the same logical flaw as the idea that it's somehow worthwhile to spend 50 minutes talking about Bittergate, Jeremiah Wright, Tuzla, William Ayers, and American flag pins. These issues, "electability" included, are entirely self-referential: they're considered important because they're considered important. It's just another iteration of "the Brooks cycle." Pundits think "electability" matters because other pundits told them so. Voters care about "electability," sort of, because pundits tell them they should, not because they think it's intrinsically important. And generally, in the end, it's not what they vote on. People vote on personalities, perceptions, vague impressions, and occasionally, issues. And the whole freakin' reason we have "debates" is to give voters the information that would at least enable them to decide based on issues -- specifically, the issues they care about -- if they so choose.

So, while I'm all for asking two or three "Republican" questions in a Democratic debate, and vice versa, last night was definitely overkill. A good, healthy mix of questions is one thing, but last night was all "gotcha" and Republican issues, and no Democratic issues. That's just inexcusable.

Matthew Yglesias makes an interesting point along these lines:

How is it that we can't have our Republican primary debates moderated by conservatives and our Democratic debates moderated by liberals? Doesn't it seem like a panel of progressives might have a better sense of what Democratic primary voters want to hear about? The Republican Presidential Debate with Rich Lowry and Bill Kristol, the Democratic Presidential Debate with Harold Meyerson and Katrina vanden Heuvel -- something along those lines.

I don't think I'd want to have exclusively conservatives moderating Republican debates, and exclusively liberals moderating Democratic debates; you don't want to facilitate groupthink and encourage radicalization of the parties. But certainly, there ought to be at least one true conservative on the panel for any Republican debate, and at least one true liberal on the panel for any Democratic debate -- or, at the very least, the moderators ought to seek advice beforehand from a variety of members of the relevant ideological group about what kind of questions they should ask.

Because ultimately, the point of a debate should be relevantly inform the electorate in question. There'll be plenty of time to ask Obama about the evils of gun control, and McCain about the pain that poor people suffer because of spending cuts, in the general-election campaign. Asking them a few questions like that in a primary debate is fine. But having those questions, plus process and "gotcha" questions, completely overwhelm the debate, is not. There's limited time to work with, and a lot of issues to cover. And giving the voters information about the issues that are important to them is part of "the journalist's job," too.

Comments

[Andrew]

The closer the debates get to what you're asking for, Brendan, the more the debate will seem like an Oxbridge debate competition, and the viewership will plummet to the extent that it'll be just you, Andrew Sullivan, and Kos left in the audience with your various scorecards.

[Brendan Loy]

Heh. Hey, I could deal with that.

[Joe Mama]

I sympathize - I thought the debate last night sucked as well (although I was mostly watching the anti-pitchers' duel between the Yanks and Red Sux). It might have even been worse than the very Democratic Republican debate a while back hosted by CNN/YouTube.

[B. Minich]

I didn't watch the debate. However, I have to say, I am a George Stephanopoulos fan. Mostly because of his last name. The man could be totally off base, and I'd still like him because of his name. Stephanopoulos.

Kinda like George Snufalufagus.

[Angrier and Angrier]

RIP: George Snufalufagus...Political Hack.

youtube.com/watch?v=8SsMTK7IFkw&

[Sandy Underpants]

David Brook's wrote "Nobody knows what the situation in Iraq will be like. To pledge an automatic withdrawal is just insane." After 5 years of the same thing, it's pretty safe to assume that 7-10 months from now will also be the same thing. But that strikes the core difference between Republicans and Democrats-- Republicans refuse to change in spite of all evidence that we need to. John McCain says the surge is working and we will stay in Iraq for 100 years because it's just like Korea and Germany.

134 military deaths, and counting, in Iraq for 2008. 0 military deaths in Korea and Germany 4 years after those wars ended, and counting. The Surge is working.

[JO]

What I find most amusing here is that Obama supporters are outraged over the substance of last nights debate but I must have missed the outrage when the Republican candidates were asked what kind of gun they owner or if they believed everyrhing in the Bible.

I mean, seriously, is there something policy-wise that you're looking for these candidates to answer that hasn't already been discussed, dissected and disseminated ad nauseum??

[Condor]

OBAMA RETALIATES; FLICKS OFF CLINTON IN RESPONSE TO DEBATE

http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/04/17/obama-criticizes-abc-debate-senator-clintons-performance/

(quick flick at 1:23)

[Sandy Underpants]

The other laughable point from David Brook's, and you really have to wonder why conservative commentators keep their heads in their asses when the air in LA and NY is so much fresher, "[Clinton and Obama] both just emasculated their domestic programs. Returning the rich to their Clinton-era tax rates will yield, at best, $40 billion a year in revenue. It’s impossible to fund a health care plan, let alone anything else, with that kind of money."

Oh dear David, if we don't have to pay for this stupid waste in Iraq that saves $76 billion a year. I know $76 billion is just peanuts, but $76 billion saved is $76 billion earned, and the money not wasted in Iraq could actually be used to fund Universal healthcare for YEARS. Not to suggest that, that isn't a waste of money as well, but it certainly is a better use than letting our youngsters wander around the sandbox aimlessly and endlessly getting blown to pieces for unnapreciative, disloyal, and untrustworthy Arabs.

[Sean Braisted]

I know there is this general idea that Florida is Israel in America; but in reality, Jewish voters consist of about 5% of the Florida electorate. In 2004, Kerry won Jews 80-20 but still lost the state by 4 points. If Obama only wins Jewish voters 60-40 (or even loses 40-60), you are only talking about a 1-2 point swing.

Not to mention, that is presupposing that Jewish voters only vote on the issue of Israel, and that they take a Likud position on the matter; if that were the case, Kerry would've lost the Jewish vote to Bush. They are far more complex than that.

[Angrier and Angrier]

David Brook's wrote "Nobody knows what the situation in Iraq will be like. To pledge an automatic withdrawal is just insane."

After five years, nearly 4,000 lives and hundreds of billions of dollars, "Nobody knows what the situation in Iraq will be like" is a pretty damn good reason for leaving. If you don't know what the situation will be like after five years, investing five more years of the same is "just insane."

[David K.]

JO, why should Obama supporters care about the GOP debates?

[Alasdair]

Brendan - I hate to say it, but you seem to be turning into a nuanced elitist ...

"... the issues Democratic voters actually care about." - some of us so-called neanderthal neo-cons happen to believe that quite a few Democratic voters are smart enough not to drink the Kos-aid and, as such, actually care about the answers to the questions asked ...

"... or, at the very least, the moderators ought to seek advice beforehand from a variety of members of the relevant ideological group about what kind of questions they should ask. " - given the ratings, is it not indeed possible that the ratings were as high as they were due to people who were watching deciding to stay and see and hear more precisely due to the specific questions being asked and the answers the candidates gave ? Could it be that {shocked gasp} "even" Democratic voters can care about substantive issues (and not just about how the Cult of Global Warming is brining out a slew of Indulgences to sell on a "progressive" sliding scale) ?

Personally, I suspect that those voters who watched and kept watching were quite likely to have been satisfied by the very contrast with the Dem-tilted questions usually asked at Primary Debates (of either stripe) ...

The LAST thing we need is quotas for "types of questions" permissible to ask in a Primary Debate ... the electorate IS smarter than that ... (even the bitter ones) ...

[Ed]

BL - I believe you have written in the past that there really isn't much in the way of policy differential between BHO and HRC. If not you, it is certainly the consensus/conventional wisdom.

Anyway, in this environment, isn't the job of an inquisator to flesh out distinctions? There have been dozens of "debates" now and the positions on Iraq, taxation, health care , and the like have been addressed ad nauseum. Each has pledged to adhere to a traditional liberal approach. There is no significant difference.

However, there ARE some compelling personal narratives that bear examining. The Wright/Rezko denials have been evolving and the Ayers association is brand new since Texas/Ohio. Bitter/cling is also distinct to PA. BHO had NOT presented himself before a skeptical press in a format that allowed for meaningful follow-up.

The "non-policy" questions last night focused nearly 100% of the time on specific incidents that each candidate was personally involved with. They were not the "biblical/gun" philosophical gotchas you cited in your post.

It is ludicrous to complain that Dem voters want to hear about Dem issues/policy concerns. I defy you, or anyone else, to cite any such issue/policy concern that has not already been thoroughly hashed out in multiple forums and media. The point of a press availability is to glean new information, or to get answers for new developments, such as the ones I noted above.

[Andrew]

Ed, your comment is too wise for this audience.

[Dramaphrodite]

history can already be written for the 2008 election winner - he/she will be the candidate elected by the stupid: (a) stupid people who believed John McCain casting himself as the conservative choice; (b) stupid people voting for Mike Huckacool over Romney; (c) stupid not-ready-for-Scientology players voting for Obama; and . . . . Well, I hate to say there's any special about Hillary voters, but, she's a liberal, so I can't say their not stupid. There you have it. As stupid choices go, Hillary is the least stupid, if you're a democrat. If you're a republican, you can fight over whether McCain or Huckacool was more stupid than the other.

Then agsin, Huckacool is only stupid in that idiots chose him and McCain, by proxy, over Romney. If it had been Huckacool versus McCain alone, it would not have been that stupid.

There you have it. This race should be Hillary versus Huckacool. The least stupid of the stupid choices made already this election season.

[JT]

Dramaphrodite is stupid.

[Dramaphrodite]

JT likes sheep.

[Nipplepunx]

George Fukitupiguess.....

[Sandy Underpants]

I don't think Hillary is even qualified to run for president, if anyone is actually voting for her and not Bill. I was pretty sure this was Bill Clinton's 3rd term, but the way people have handled this, voters actually want Hillary to make the decisions after only 6 years total of any public service experience, that being with the US Senate. Her only memorable contribution was voting with the majority to give away her and the rest of the House and Senate's constitutional authority to declare war, ceding all power and authority to the president. Other than that she introduced legislation to protect kids from Grand Theft Auto 3 and voted in favor of gay marriage. This equals accomplishing really close to about nothing.

To paraphrase her rug munching buddy Geraldine Ferraro, 'Hillary wouldn't be where she is today if she wasn't married to Bill Clinton', and that's the ONLY reason she got to where she got.

[Barack Obama]

Wait -- you have to be "qualified to run for president"?

Why didn't anyone tell me?

[Rev. Al Sharpton]

Not necessarily.

[Alasdair]

Andrew - couldit be that Sandy Underpants is jalypso on half-dose meds ?

[George W. Bush]

Wait -- you have to be "qualified to run for president"?

Heh, heh, nope ya sure don't! Ain't it grand!

[Rutherford B. Hayes]

I find all of this highly offensive.