My father was always loath to give me praise. I never really understood the reasons, but settled on the notion he simply never wanted me to get too big for my britches. Since his reticence to offer compliments forced me to generally talk up my achievements as a coping strategy, a convenient circular process was established. I boasted to him hoping for more of his favor, which he then withheld so I wouldn’t crow as much. Nice.
Anyway, once when I presented him with a near flawless report card from UNH, figuring he couldn’t possibly find anything to stifle at least a mini proper, he shook his head and chuckled. Uh oh. Why would I need all of these classes on authoritarians, he wondered aloud. “Hmmm, totalitarian political thought. Jeez, Willie, you live in the US. What the hell do you have to worry about?” Indeed.
If Wednesday’s Democratic Presidential debate achieved anything, and believe me that’s a reach one has to think on, it confirmed beyond reasonable doubt government by Chuck Todd would reflect only marginal improvement over the Hannity Presidency we now suffer. Make no mistake, whatever notes NBC has been taking as to the media’s rightful responsibilities, or the precarious balance between abiding truth and searching out news in the MAGA era, Todd and company clarified it has absorbed all the wrong lessons.
That this was the first debate since PBS legend Jim Lehrer’s death proves God does provide bread crumbs along our wayward path; what we do with them is up to us. Or, perhaps as the great journalist H.L. Mencken observed: “God is a comedian, playing to an audience too afraid to laugh.“ At least we are all spared the worry of ever mistaking Chuck Todd for his predecessor Tim Russert. After Wednesday’s performance Todd is more toward calling Jerry Springer a peer.
To be fair from the outset, there are no easy answers for navigating the uncharted territory this Presidency carves out. American journalism as an institution, its foundations and traditions, now faces dilemmas only authoritarians can confer. It has had zero practice confronting such existential concerns here at home. Whatever it learned covering the same abroad surely loses something in the translation. Balancing “the story” and a dedication to truth, even as a President and vast legions of propagandists subservient to him lie at will, is like treating cancer; there is going to be trial and error involved, mistakes along the way…. and side effects. Yet and still, refusing to acknowledge the challenge even exists, and planning formats for events as important as Wednesday’s, in line with such willful obtuseness is flat out malpractice.
It’s hard to imagine exactly how Todd and his fellow panelists envisioned their role, or what they felt was to be achieved, following the format all employed and line of questioning they pursued. One thing is certain, Mr. Meet The Press in particular was wholly unconcerned with applying the differences between candidates he questioned in Nevada to the constant stream of unprecedented chaos originating in the White House. The only context he cared about was whatever grudge matches he could stir up on stage.
As Democrats squared off with the fate of American democracy at stake, the notion of perhaps exploring whether unity may be important to unseating an incumbent who will surely spin his 20,000th fabrication by Election Day was never entertained by the moderators, Todd least of all. The idea of asking whether finding common ground now may actually aid one of them in November was obviously given not even a passing thought. Instead, the bent they sought to create was that of a reality show, ambitious policy nerds ready to put the knife in if ambition called for it. Really not much different from The Apprentice boardroom of past NBC prime time glory. Desperate survivors trying to stay on the island by casting doubt about those currently holding sway. Lord of the Flies comes to Vegas!
The impression the debate left was, not comical, but not serious either. A bunch of squabbling about policy details that go back to the beginning of this slog, peppered with settling of scores and introducing a neophyte to his limitations as a savior. When Todd wasn’t losing control of the proceedings, he was luxuriating in the inanity of it all. Presidential politics as sport, or pro wrestling…. right up his alley.
But yet again, to be as fair as one can be, the candidates required precious little prodding to get started on one another. In fact, it’s doubtful, had one asked Elizabeth Warren whether the sun comes up in the East, as Mayor Pete suggested, she wouldn’t have poo pooed the assertion as just more consultantspeak. She certainly wasn’t interested in talking about Trumpian pestilence, other than as a pro forma intro or afterthought. After all, she had a campaign to rescue!
But, in a time of crisis, Todd’s propensity to ask questions like he already knows the answer has never been more annoying. Broader implications past polling and recent sound bites never interested him much. Wednesday’s performance mirrored that vacuum he and the entire NBC team seem to feel should always consume inquiries. In other words, what does pardoning white collar felons willy nilly have to do with the price of copays. Or wholesale purges within the foreign policy and intelligence communities? An unhinged President without advisors. Not worth a mention? Nothing to see there? At least nothing worth shaving time from cat fights or brawls over convention rules.
In a time of national crisis three paramount concerns seem exceedingly reasonable: 1) our leaders recognize the emergency exists; 2) they make some effort to place the national interest ahead of personal ambitions, sacrificing the latter in service to the former; and 3) they actually lead and tell things straight. even if it’s not what their constituents want to hear. Should they stray from such parameters, well, that’s where a robust media is supposed to ask for explanations as to why they are doing so.
Wednesday evening the Democratic Presidential candidates utterly failed to meet that basic criteria. Worse, their wanton disregard was, not merely encouraged by those we rely on to hold them to account, it was demanded! Fox/AM has always fallen back on false equivalence when it’s most egregious sins are brought to light. That is, so maybe we did it, the mainstream media does it all the time. Ditto now for Trump and his GOP’s most indefensible outrages – what about Obama?! The degree to which Democrats and/or, say NBC debate moderators, help to donate credibility to such tropes mirrors our descent into the authoritarian abyss. Wednesday night’s debacle was ugly confirmation of that observation. The codependency of ruin. BC
I agree completely. There was very little of genuine substance asked, rather their questions seemed to be invitations for the candidates to attack each other rather than probing about the implications of their major policy positions.
I thought the worst example was when Noticias Telemundo senior correspondent Vanessa Hauc asked Amy Klobuchar about forgetting the President of Mexico’s name. Then, after Klobuchar responded and Warren defended her, Hauc ended with an editorial comment “Senator Warren, you’re right but Senator Klobuchar could not discuss Mexican policy either” and then moved on.
Is voicing a judgment like that a moderator’s proper role?
I don’t think so.