By Jim Geraghty
Wednesday, April 24, 2019
Assume, for a moment, that conservatives’ worst suspicions
about the national media are true: that they wake up each morning and ask
themselves, “How can I help the Democrats win today?”
A Democratic presidential primary is the one time of the
cycle where the interests of a partisan media and those of the general public
coincide: The Democratic presidential candidates need to be investigated and
evaluated, with the aim of weeding out the flawed and unelectable in order to
nominate the candidate most likely to win a general election. But the behavior
of many reporters and commentators in this young presidential cycle suggests
that they have a newfound doubt about their ability to pick a winner.
In 2016, almost everyone in the mainstream media thought
Hillary Clinton would win in a landslide. Some on the Left still prefer
exculpatory explanations (Russian hackers! Collusion! Heartland racism!), but
others have begrudgingly acknowledged that their candidate-assessment skills
had atrophied, and that Clinton was a lousy, unlikeable candidate, dogged by
scandal and a sense of entitlement. Quite a few Democrats sensed Clinton’s
repellence deep in their brains’ hippocampus; this is one reason that nearly
half of them chose a septuagenarian socialist from Vermont over her in the
primary.
Determined to not make the same mistake again, the media
are looking at the bumper crop of candidates with a much more skeptical eye —
and some of the nascent campaigns are proving unready for this at all.
Did you know that Joe Biden often blurts out
inappropriate statements and tends to touch female strangers too much? As a National Review reader, you almost
certainly know this and can cite examples off the top of your head. We and
other right-of-center media spent much of the 2008 campaign and Obama’s
presidency pointing this out to anyone who would listen, but for eight years,
Biden’s runaway mouth was interpreted as just part of his lovable “wacky Uncle
Joe” persona.
During his short-lived 2008 bid for president, Biden had
the C-SPAN cameras follow him around, and an Indian-American man came up to
greet Biden. Before the man could get much out of his mouth, Biden declared,
“As you know, I’ve got a lot of support from the Indians. I’ve had a great
relationship. . . . You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you
have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking.” The man hadn’t told Biden he
worked in either of those establishments. The Delaware senator saw him and his
first thought was to make that comment, a variation of the hackneyed routine
from 1980s comedians: “Say, a whole lot of Indian-Americans run 7–Elevens,
don’t they?”
A Biden spokesman was quickly deployed for cleanup,
offering this lame explanation:
The point Senator Biden was making
is that there has been a vibrant Indian-American community in Delaware for
decades. It has primarily been made up of engineers, scientists, and
physicians, but more recently, middle-class families are moving into Delaware
and purchasing family-run small businesses.
As the former vice president would say, “Malarkey!”
That’s not even close to what he said. He bragged about how popular he was with
this demographic and immediately followed up with a cultural stereotype.
Conservatives complain about political correctness, but this isn’t a matter of
P.C.; this is just Biden being a jackass. “Oh,
you’re a member of this ethnic group? You must be in this industry then!”
“Gonna put y’all back in chains” and “these Shylocks” —
these really weren’t lovable or wacky outbursts from America’s crazy uncle;
they were clumsy demagoguery. Biden is a blowhard and mentally sloppy, reaching
for any half-remembered argument at hand when trying to make a point. While
denouncing America’s “white man’s culture” in a speech earlier this year, Biden
cited a long-debunked claim that English law used to permit husbands to beat
their wives, as long as the rod wasn’t thicker than his thumb. The phrase
stemmed from a term of measurement from 17th-century woodworkers. Writers and
historians have regularly debunked the wife-beating connection since the early
1990s, but Biden hasn’t updated his anecdotes.
Now Biden’s handsiness, discussed on the right throughout
the Obama presidency, is suddenly a topic for a Serious National Conversation.
In Rolling Stone, which regularly
covered Obama as a rock star, Jamil Smith thundered, about Biden: “Thus far, he
has handled this controversy not much better than Trump did the Access Hollywood crisis during his 2016
campaign.” Rival 2020 candidate Julian Castro, desperate for any kind of
attention, told Bill Maher, “I think it’s bull**** to say that people can get
away with laughing it off.” Actress Ashley Judd, speaking the Women in the
World Summit in New York City, declared portentously, “Democracy starts at my
skin.”
Where was all of this when Biden was vice president and
most of these touching incidents were occurring in public, with the cameras
rolling? Why does this only now deserve a serious discussion and rebuke?
The other Democrat experiencing a brutal reevaluation in
the early months of the Democratic primary is Beto O’Rourke, who spent most of
2018 enjoying the kind of glowing press coverage reserved for the musical Hamilton, Steve Jobs’s unveiling of
Apple products, and LeBron James in years he wins the championship.
But as a presidential candidate, O’Rourke is suddenly
melting like ice cream in the Texas sun. In The
New Republic, Alex Shephard writes: “He has all of Obama’s self-assurance
with none of his intellectual fortitude, inspirational biography, or oratory
power. His rhetoric is as empty as his platform.” In Slate, Josh Voorhees assesses him as “a man without a clear
political ideology, a signature legislative achievement, a major policy issue,
or a concrete agenda for the country.” In Politico,
David Siders concludes, “One month in, the central thrust of O’Rourke’s
presidential campaign appears to be interacting with crowds.” Suddenly,
political reporters watch O’Rourke jumping on diner counters and declaring that
his agenda is a work in progress — “there’s no sense in campaigning if you
already know every single answer, if you’re not willing to listen to those whom
you wish to serve” — and they see an empty suit, gliding by on charisma and
skateboard tricks and guitar-playing, the cool kid who didn’t do his homework.
No kidding. But he’s the same guy that so many media
outlets gushed about last year. A lot of 2018’s Betomania amounted to “We
really want to see this guy beat Ted Cruz.”
It’s fair to doubt how many of these newfound skeptics
are all that bothered by Biden’s handsiness or runaway mouth, or O’Rourke’s
empty platitudes and vague happy talk. The moment that either man either quits
the race or wins the nomination, these issues will suddenly disappear outside
of the Trump campaign and the RNC. What really bothers Democrats now is that
Biden’s bad habits or O’Rourke’s thin résumé and lack of specifics might
jeopardize the party’s chance of victory in 2020. They might seem minor, but
Democrats convinced themselves that the Clinton Foundation’s shady ties, the
former secretary of state’s private email server, and her other scandals and
flaws were minor in 2016 — and were stunned to find that enough voters in
enough states disagreed.
What’s forgivable in an incumbent becomes inexcusable in
a challenger to Trump — because Democrats just don’t trust the electorate to
see past those bad habits anymore. Nor do they have faith in their own ability
to spin those flaws anymore. All things considered, that’s a good thing.
And the transparency in the media coverage of these men’s
flaws, turning to a topic suddenly and en masse and then abandoning the topic
just as quickly, like a school of fish moving in synch, is a good thing, even
if it’s annoying. It reveals that conservatives’ worst suspicions about the
national media were credible all along.
No comments:
Post a Comment