If Only Life Was Like Jeopardy and You Got the Answers First

Shortly after Barack Obama and John McCain finished their sit-down interviews with Rev. Rick Warren, the analysis began. I was flipping through channels and a bevy of talking-head squares appeared on CNN, looking like the political version of "The Brady Bunch."

One pundit, Dana Bash, was finishing up. With that knowing look of authority, she was explaining how John McCain had come across, "very direct, very clear about his answers," she intoned, "like George Bush," while Barack Obama had been - and here she scrunched her face - "very nuanced," like the previous Democratic candidates.

The inference was obvious. Direct and clear - winner. Nuanced - loser.

This was one of those moments you really wished for Interactive TV. O, to point out what was so wrong-headed about her comments.

What was wrong is that journalists have value when they report, not make value judgments. Upturned noses are best left to cotillions. Or Fox News. It's that basic.

But that's not the issue.

Because any analyst who thinks a comparison to George Bush with a 29% approval rating is A Good Thing is only demonstrating that she should be doing rehab on her analytical skills.

But that's not the issue.

You see, we all understand the subtext of what she was saying. Yet John Kerry and Al Gore did not lose because they were nuanced, or because George Bush was clear-headed. Al Gore lost largely because he came across as too distant to people, and was painted by Republicans as an exaggerator. Nuance was way down on the list. (And lest we forget, Mr. Gore got more popular votes than Mr. Bush.

John Kerry lost because he also came across as too distant, and (though a war hero) was painted as virtually a war coward - as well as a flip-flopper, wind-surfer and too "French." Nuance was way down on the list.

By contrast, Barack Obama is the polar opposite of wooden. Even the McCain campaign itself acknowledges how attractive Sen. Obama is to the masses. Further, the battered country has by now grasped that the simplistic and unbending worldview of George Bush is not acceptable for an American President, and given him a 29% approval rating, with Congressional Republicans running for cover.

But that's not the issue either.

What at issue is this: in what universe does Dana Bash - or any reporter - think that the concept of "nuance" should be presented as A Bad Thing?

Life is made up of atoms and nuance. Every hour of every day of our lives, we face nuanced decisions. We breathe a sigh of relief for those rare, blessed moments when we get to deal with something clearcut, black-and-white. Not crossing the street in traffic. Hating the New York Yankees. Most everything else - nuance. Life isn't easy, we all say. It isn't. And it isn't largely because there is so much nuance in most of everything we all do. Always. The simple, un-nuanced moment? It's heaven sent. The rest, that's for us to deal with down on earth.

But that's just us. Imagine now the President of the United States. If someone doesn't fully accept how nuanced that job is, they're not trying. If a news reporter (especially one actually analyzing such things) doesn't regularly address how nuanced the presidency is supposed to be - dealing with the varied interests of 300 million Americans, and then balancing that off of every culture in the world - then that reporter is doing us all a disservice and wasting airspace.

The reality is that 71% of Americans now understand the problem we face when a president is unwilling or unable to deal with nuance, and is instead close-minded, incurious, and can only stay the simple course he is already on.

If anyone does think that "nuance" is a negative, however, then just explain why. Explain that you think the public is too stupid to grasp nuance. Because otherwise, if you don't believe that, if people are not too stupid, if they can follow nuance, if they're adult, mature and can understand differences...then nuance isn't a problem at all.

Perhaps reporters themselves will grasp that their jobs exist because of nuance. That the whole concept of presenting two sides of a story is the heart of nuance.

Belittling nuance is worse than "shooting the messenger." It's shooting the messenger who has a message that the coming storm will not just water your daisies - but also flood the entire valley because the dam is about to break. Or the levees.

In the end, we understand why Republican strategists want to convince others Life is Sooo Easy that all big decisions are black-and-white. Because life is sooo difficult that some people will grab at whatever looks like an easy answer. But today, most Americans understand that a life full of only easy answers only gets you George Bush.

Comments

[timm0]

Well, first of all... I object to you calling these people "reporters." They're editorialists on their best day.

Second, a lot of people think in black and white. It's not bad to give a crisp answer once in a while and do something like direct people to check your web site for more detail on a position. It avoids awkward explanations that are attempted in 25 seconds, but really can't be adequately treated in less than 4 minutes. I saw a couple of Obama's answers and they were wishy-washy.

The other thing that simple, direct, empty answers do is put the interviewer on the spot to decide if they want to come up with a re-wording of the question or a more specific question which can be answered more effectively.

Last, just because my comment implies that I agree with the talking shirts, the fact is that they don't understand what they're observing. This isn't about nuance - it's about communicating effectively.

[shoabear]

Thank you so much for writing this article. I kept wondering why there has been so much praise in regards to McCain's "clear and concise" responses to Rev. Warren. I could not see them as clear and concise, they only sounded one sided, simple and sound bite-ish. I thought Obama's responses were much more thoughtful. I also felt stunned as I watched the entire event unfold because it did seem as though McCain was overly prepared- as if he had formalized his answers beforehand. It was too weird.

I also thought it was weird that CNN had Pat Buchanan as a 'political analyst' espousing how well McCain did. It was astounding to me, as if the people on TV had been replaced with programmed robots by the Right wing. I guess nowadays that is not such a far-fetched idea. Sad.

Again, as for Obama- I am puzzled by the people who say he didn't do well, that he fumbled. He did do well for a thinking, contemplative person with some degree of foresight. Please America, lets not do this again. Lets not fall prey to simple answers in complex times. Look where it got us last time.

[GunnyJ]

Bash, Gergen and the right wing dude all missed the call from the religious set-up to favor McC on Saturday. I used to think that CNN was OK, but they are starting to disappoint me. McC is not being challenged by the press as you indicated above and this is a sad state of affairs. America needs to know the truth good, bad or otherwise................ McC is not all he says he is..........

[lboucher]

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - Rasmussen
Nearly half of U.S. voters (49%) think it is at least somewhat likely that Hillary Clinton will overshadow the Democrats" presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama at the party"s national political convention next week. Twenty-three percent (23%) say it is Very Likely!!

[Skua]

Why are you posting this on every comment thread in sight? :-)

[Bitsko]

Will anyone even remember Saddleback a couple of days from now? Did most Americans even notice?

[neoconsareliars]

The fact is we need a leader who has the ability to think and reason, not lie and cheat. That leader is Obama. McCain is a cliche, much like Bush, willing to say the short, quick sound bite. There is nothing behind McCain. He is a disaster waiting to explode into WW III.

[Luigi53102]

Excellent piece. Thank you!

[allonfla]

Thank you for writing this article. I have been thinking the same thing except not so eloquently. Although I was not into politics until Obama started to run, I remember seeing Kerry and Gore on TV and thinking " they look so stiff and boring, they won't win". Simple. I know, but I was right. When I look at Obama I see someone I would not be afraid to walk up to and ask for directions (not a comment on race - i am just very choosy about what strangers I approach for directions or help- i always approach the most approachable). I also don't see that woodeness in Bill Clinton or George Bush - no matter how much you hate him or them.

[Jules1]

I really believe McCain had all the questions and answers before hand or he would not of done as well as he did, not saying he did great, most were lies, cross in the sand, give me a break, remember the stories he tells about being held captive, he plays on that a lot, he stole Baracks not shopping after 9/11 and also getting out and doing community service more was also Baracks idea, what a liar McCain is.

[thehardertheycome]

Thank you! I knew that Barack had used those words at the Wellsly graduation that he stood in for Kennedy. I wondered why no one up until now had called John McCain on that.

Thank you.

[mbafromharvard]

The fact is we need a leader that can make the tough decisions, and that leader is McCain. Obama is simply too wishy-washy to make those tough decisions. He wants to "consider all points of view" in a time when we need decisive leaders. Most liberals don't want to accept the world we live in today, but the rest of us do. There's no place for "nuance" today. We need decisive action.

[boonjava]

Like the clear and decisive action that brought about the Iraq invasion. The world wishes for the nuance Obama provided when Bush and McCain started gunning for Saddam.

Strangely enough, I thought that to "consider all points of view" implied that one wanted to be "well informed" so that one wouldn't make sudden gaffes about who the sunni and shia are, or whether Iran is funding Al Qaeda.

God help us all if McCain makes it to the white house.

Good news though, it is possible to be nuanced as well as decisive. Which is why I support Obama.

[Bitsko]

Why don't you just write in Don Rumsfeld?

[TexasDem0]

Like bombing Iran?

[Skua]

Like bombing Russia? No need for nuance THERE....

[ConstitutionFirst]

Considering all points of view doesn't mean you can't make a tough decision. It just makes you more likely to make the right one.

[GrainOSand]

McCain will make quick decisions without much thought about consequences -- and that is the scary part. Push the button now McCain may hasten the demise of us all. I love my family and friends and I hear nuclear winter is uninviting and does not promote life.

Vacillation is different from thoughtful consideration or intelligent deliberation.

[Charmed]

Great Article....Obama is not only a thinker but he makes others think. Before Obama came along how many young adults, hell older adults for that matter even knew what a delegate or superdelegate was. I had no idea what the political process was about besides the fact that you go out and vote on election day. People keep saying what type of change is Obama talking about...look around....people are actucally involved in the political process.

Obama maybe black and white in heritage but his way of thinking is in the gray for the greater good of Americans.

[GrainOSand]

Fear is the enemy of nuance in that the fearful want clear concise answers for what ails them. Such positions are delusional and hypocritical against the backdrop of individual life lived. As stated, life can be seen as difficult because each moment presents a wide variety of choices concerning direction to take, choice to make, and position to stand on or to vacate. A certain aspect of the public is not too stupid to get nuance, they are too afraid about life, and too delusional about what it takes to be president.

Mr. Obama has annoyed me several times during this process as he has taken a position that seems to run counter to his espoused principles. However, as one who has lived longer than a day, I am forced to sit back and think how I too engage in the same sort of behavior. People all over America work at jobs they hate because they fear death by starvation or the chill of a wind that comes when no shelter is available. Therefore, they capitulate to what they hate to continue to access that they need. Are such people cowards or flip floppers? I think not! The concept of the greater good is sometimes lost upon the fearful and the delusional. One need only watch Jet Li"s breathtaking movie Hero to understand the nuanced position. He allowed a tyrant to live while he resultantly suffered his own death -- because it was for the greater good of China.

[MizLiz]

I think the title to this piece tells the whole story about that farce at Saddleback. Listen, I could be clear and concise too, if I was fed the questions and clever sound-bite answers were given to me while I was tootling around in the limo.

That's exactly why obama has shied away from those silly "Town Halls" that mcCain keeps pushing. He knows he'd be playing against a stacked deck.

[ex-pat]

Perhaps even as outrageous as the "DHL" woman, after the despicable Evangelists holier than thou conference how can anyone believe for an instant that everyone is not some sort of a plant for the "Pet Senator?"
All you have to do is be a person of average intelligence to see through this sham... but then again maybe that is giving too many Americans the benefit of the doubt.