The Descent Into Absurdity

This column appears next week in 15 countries across the Middle East and South Asia. It has become increasingly difficult to explain what is going on here. This is my attempt.

Watching the Democratic contest for the presidency unfold over the past several weeks brings to mind a scene I saw play out almost two decades ago.

It was in the lead-up to a hotly contested governor's race in New York, and I was in the lounge at JFK airport waiting to board and Egypt Air flight to Cairo. About a dozen Egyptian travelers were also there, many of them watching a television program. During the break, they were treated to a barrage of four inflammatory political commercials. The first dramatically reported that candidate X had not paid taxes and could not be trusted. The next countered with the charge that candidate Y's associates had been guilty of fraud, raising questions about his honesty and integrity. There followed two more with much the same messages.

At the end, one of my fellow travelers looked at his companion and said, "So, these New Yorkers must choose between the crook and the fraud?" There were, of course, far more serious issues at stake in that campaign, but you would not have been able to discern this watching the election play out during that commercial break.

Much the same can be said watching this year's Democratic primary as it devolve into an absurd caricature of itself.

During the past five weeks, the media's nearly exclusive focus has been directed to troubling statements made by friends of the candidates, or verbal gaffes made by the candidates themselves.

This particular round began with comments made by former Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro, a supporter of Senator Clinton, who demeaned Senator Obama's candidacy, saying, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position."

The fallout over Ferraro's remarks lasted a few days, only to be replaced by clips of sermons by Senator Obama's former pastor in which he is seen damning America and in which he suggests that the U.S. government started the AIDS virus. After rejecting these remarks, Obama rather skillfully attempted to bring this chapter to a close with his remarkable speech on race in America.

A short respite followed, but before the media became bored or the candidates had an opportunity to focus on real issues, the next big story became Senator Clinton's repeated exaggeration of her having braved sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia in 1996. This, too, played out for days until overtaken by a tape Senator Obama was released in which he says, "You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. ... And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

This provided fodder not only for the media sharks but also the Clinton campaign, which charged that these words showed Obama to be "elitist, out of touch with average voters."

All of this and more was in sharp focus Wednesday night during the last nationally televised debate between Senators Clinton and Obama. Though much anticipated, the debate was an enormous letdown with exactly one-half of its allotted time on the absurd side issues that have become the media's obsession.

Some claim that, far from being silliness and distractions, these matters are important indicators of a candidate's character: their truthfulness, and their philosophies. Such a claim, however, is but a tortured bit of logic advanced to justify the media's craven and crass need for sensationalism.

It must be said that some blame for this sad state of affairs should be placed at the doorstep of the now desperate Clinton campaign. They have fueled many of these faux controversies, seeking to exploit them to their advantage.

Being hopelessly behind in delegates, states won, and in national polls as well, Senator Clinton seems to believe that her only chance to win (all other gambits having failed) is to so weaken her opponent that he will appear unelectable. This, she hopes, will convince delegates to abandon the Obama campaign in support of her candidacy.

It has not worked. Make no mistake about it, Obama has been harmed by this effort. His negative ratings have risen to the mid-30% range, and Republicans now have ammunition they will surely use against Obama in the fall campaign (such as: "Obama is an out-of-touch elitist," "Obama is tied to extremists," "Obama is not ready to be Commander in Chief," etc) - all compliments of Hillary Clinton.

But even with this, most indicators show that this negative campaign hasn't slowed Obama's march to the nomination. Since February of this year, Obama has increased his superdelegate count by 81. By contrast, Clinton has recorded a net gain of 3 (she actually added 10, but lost 7 who switched to Obama). When elected delegates and superdelegates are added together, his lead is now almost 150 delegates. In order for Clinton to eclipse this, she must win more than two-thirds of all the votes in the remaining ten states - something she simply cannot do.

And while Obama's negative ratings have risen somewhat, Clinton's negatives are now at 54%, with 6 in 10 voters saying they do not trust her. That is hardly material with which to build her own case for electability.

The bottom line here is that this absurdity, born of the media's obsession and the Clinton campaign's desperation, is accomplishing little but delaying the inevitable while causing as much damage as possible.

There is a strange pathology playing out here that is both sad and dangerous and, I'm sure, to those outsiders looking in, very strange indeed.

Comments

[GaiasChild]

Great commentary here. Maybe the beginning of a trend? One hopes? In which thoughtful observers with a sense of both history and immediacy can interpret this drama with some dispassion and, therefore, some helpfulness.

Yes. It is helpful to have some dispassion on the whole mess now. There's a little better chance at insight and truth I think.

So it is true that from second place, and I am not so dispassionate, the Clintons have played every ulterior card they can find. No attack is too cheap, too tawdry and no promise too local to make. How many of those chummy promises to local constiuencies could any president hope to keep? And do the American voters confuse aggressive and antagonism with strength?

Maybe so. The contest seems to have a 51 percent to 49 quality. So that about half of democrats are going to be totally enraged no matter what happens? And then have to either vote for the one they detest or wind up with ... the opposite of everything that the 100 percent of this polarized mess ever wanted.

It helps me to read the dispassionate observations of others.

[Doofus]

In American politics, even with only 2 parties, eventually you get to see everything.
It would be even wilder & chaotic with more parties, as other democratic states
have shown. Not that there's anything wrong with that, as in 'parliamentary'
democracies.

Roughly, half the Electorate is not even in a party. A quarter of the Electorate has
settled on their Candidate, but aren't entirely happy about it. Another quarter is
more or less evenly split over two Candidates, and aren't entirely happy either
(to put it mildly). That's life in the Big Democracy: electoral minorities get to pick
the Candidates, and then the independent majority gets to elect the President.

[ljsfolly]

Ok we all got it in no doubt the wide world on stupidity the debate on ABC atank badly. There was little said we cared to hear about as we all waited with bated breath for the "real questions" to begin. Some stopped watching before a real question was asked somewhere after 45 minutes. But the one thing that we all got and many of us almost missed it. The woman said Barack COULD BE ELECTED. After her endorsement of McCain and all of he republican recorded sound bites where she has said over and over into the tendium zone that Barack could not be elected and he was not electable. Funny thing happened while we got pissed about the worthless debate that was more trash questions and enough pile by Hillary she surely got ehquestions in advance. George S may have left eh clinton white house but he's still their boy! Anyway th next phase should be called "WIpe off my shoulder" as Barack has shown he is ready to deflect all of the sinks and brown crap flying from the clintons.

[Doofus]

Y'know, it's almost as if ABC realizes that SOMEONE has to look out for many voters,
those that fit into the 'most of the voters, some of the time' category. As in, 'Hey Mr Obama,
do you love the Flag? If so, how much?' That was a question that really needed asking.

It may indeed be the only important moment was when Clinton recognized that Obama is electable.

[larry278]

Mr Zogby's blog is as reliable as his blogs. His 1st sentence reeks of flatulence. The rest of this blog is spin, pure but not simple. Mr Zogby has no use for simplicity. Simplicity is anethema to a spin meister.
Isn't it time for HP to post its anti-polling petition again? Mr Zogby is having another episode of delusions of accuracy.

[generationyes]

Who smelt it, dealt it.

[ButterflyWeed]

Much of the absurdity of political free will in America lies in her citizens' lazy consumption of spoon-fed "firestorms" of the week, as though these are the "issues" worthy of one's vote. I'd like to see the poll that asks Americans, "How many hours have you spent researching candidates' records on issues important to your own world view?" Being anti- supplies the easier way out to our drive-by mentality.

[efranklin]

Descent indeed. We're all going to wake up one morning and China will have surpassed us in all facets of existence. Americans will ask, where did our edge go? The answer: we were too fixated on flag pins and pastor sermons to ponder our economy, Iraq, education, health care, technology, ...

[Doofus]

Non-Americans should understand that Americans dearly love Political
Theater, the more wild & crazy the better. But, no actual violence, please.

It's a lot like World-cup soccer, otherwise.

Democracy is not neat or pretty. It's actually mean & nasty & very disorderly.

Try it sometime. It can be exhilarating!

[doc1400]

I don't know what America you are talking about but my America wants to make intelligent decisions about the issues. Get a life.

[Doofus]

Much of the world seems to prefer 'neat & orderly', 'proper' government.
Obviously, we don't go in for that, and never have. It's a mistake to represent
to the world that there's something 'wrong' with America because our
politicians make ridiculous claims about one another. It's how a solid
democracy works, as we have proven year after year, as one of the
oldest functioning democracies in the world (if the not the oldest).

[LizM]

"There is a strange pathology playing out here that is both sad and dangerous and, I'm sure, to those outsiders looking in, very strange indeed."

And, the most dangerous and strangest aspect of this 'pathology' - from this outsider - is the fact that the candidate most qualified and best equipped to meet the serious challenges facing America, at home but especially abroad, was forced out of the race by the time the last caucus wrapped up in Iowa as a direct result of his campaign being completely ignored, or otherwise dismissed, by the media and blogosphere. In so doing, the media and blogosphere deprived the electorate of the opportunity for an honest assessment of the capacity for real leadership of a Biden presidency.

And, so...we are left with a farcical caricature of a political campaign that is, essentially, a battle for mediocrity. I would like to know when it was that Americans became so willing and content to settle for so much less than the very best.

[strifeknot]

Biden, like Clinton, represents the intransigent old guard of the Party. He's dead wood and needs to be cleared. Kucinich was by a devastatingly large margin the best candidate to run this year.

[grendl]

The fact of the matter is, to politicians its rather irrelevant what debates are about. If the electorate is truly interested in something as stupid as wearing a flag pin, or a candidate hyperbolizing outrageously her heroic appearance on a Bosnian tarmac, or a preacher inclined towards wild invective, then thats what they'll give them.

If it were actually the important issues, then they'd address those. It seems though, its easier to fight about the silly, superficial stuff, as once they get into office they are going to embark upon their own personal and political agendas, and the opinions of the masses will be put on hold until the next election season, when these same politicians will spend most of their time trying to justify their decisions.

See what some call silly season is really our chance in America to indulge in the fantasy that we're part of the democratic process. They pretend we matter, and we buy it hook line and sinker. You think once Hillary's in, ( like that would happen ) she's going to put her focus on supporting the NRA. Hell no. That ends the minute the Pennsylvania results are finalized.

It's all a masquerade, and the best that we can do is pick someone with the most transparent mask.

[peterg76]

You would think the "elitist, out of touch" candidate was the one who doesn't understand (or care) that there are bitter and disilliusioned voters out there (and why).

[MPeter]

Yep, could not agree more. The Clintons are at the core of the polarization in this country. They stalk it, feed it and benefit from it. Obama has beaten them and now all they are focussed on is to destroy him and along with him, hopes for this country. The Clintons cannot win this nomination.

[wolfi101]

Nope, they can't.

But they ~can~ punish the Democratic Party in the process for not giving them their inevitable candidacy. After all, if the party isn't going to do what it's told to do by the Clintons, of what use is it to them?

[Mormondude]

WORST. ELECTION. EVER

The sad truth of the matter is that we DO have to choose between the pathological liar, the incompetent neophyte, or the crazy old man.

[jeg]

That incompetent neophyte has rewritten the rules of presidential campaigning and created a nationwide grass-roots campaign that's been able to out-maneuver one of the oldest, most powerful campaign teams in the country.

He also has this bizarre habit of wanting to talk about issues, instead of 5 second soundbites, but a lot of people can't be bothered to pay attention to anything more substantial than one or two word labels.

I'll bet on the new guy, thanks.

[wolfi101]

With the 'crazy old man', you have the economy going to pooh and us involved in Iraq, Afghanistan, and possibly even more wars.

With the 'pathological liar', you partisanship tearing the country apart, while her supporters (domestic and foreign) get juicy little tidbits and benefits.

With the 'incompetent neophyte', you at least have a chance for something other and better than what those previous two would give us.

[Desiderata]

Stiff upperlip, Mormondude. It"s either the beginning of something better or the end of everything. Either way, nothing will ever be the same again.

[wheresthebeef]

I'll buy the "liar" part (though I'm not so sure that "pathological" is clinically accurate), and I'll buy the "crazy old man" part (though, again, maybe not in the purely clinical sense). But where do you get "incompetent?" Seems to me that Obama's pretty competently knocked the pins out from under Hillary's once-inevitible coronation. Since all he can be meaasured on as it relates to the campign thusfar is how well he's done against the competition (and don't forget Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, Richardson, et al), I'd say he's perfectly competent.

[paragrafH]

Not really. We do have one candidate who is eager to campaign on the issues -- and who has served notice to inane campaign distractions. He's the one candidate who does not talk down to people and who raises the bar on the discussions of what's wrong -- and can be changed -- about this country. The three endorsements today support his judgment and ability to lead. These people do not consider him to be a neophyte but a man of substance who is willing to listen and to unite. Give the guy a chance. And give the voters the benefit of the doubt to recognize that the old way of doing politics has been given notice, too.