Jockeying the Horse Race

Six days before the New Hampshire primary, the right-hand column of The New York Times' front page read "Dole Opens Drive in New Hampshire with New Theme." The article in this prime location focused on a six-sentence passage of a recent Bob Dole speech in order to explain a shift of focus in the candidate's campaign strategy. The only kernel of information being documented was Dole's acknowledgment of uneasiness among working class Americans. The rest of the article, the greater part, was devoted to reporter Richard L. Berke's analysis and speculation about what such an acknowledgment might mean in the coming weeks of the campaign.

We have become accustomed to the kind of campaign coverage the media dishes out each election cycle, the story that unfolds slowly from February up on through to November. There's the uncertain and quickly-evolving primary season, the feast of analysis during the summer conventions, the drama of election night. But even as the public is bombarded with information about presidential politics from the traditional sources of news, these outlets are producing less and less of the kind of information useful in deciding among candidates. And with the proliferation of "gotcha" questions, scandal hunts and polls, it is equally apparent that the mainstream media fail to provide candidates any real opportunity to air their views.

Thomas Patterson's 1993 book Out of Order cuts to the heart of the problems underlying the mainstream media's coverage of the presidential election process. His analysis is as persuasive as it is pessimistic; he argues that the press has failed miserably in its role as the organizing mechanism in recent campaigns because news reports tend to ignore policy themes in favor of the horse-race aspect of the political contest.

While "voters...view politics primarily as a means of choosing leaders and solving their problems," reporters cover the campaign as if it were an extended game, stressing themes rather than facts, devoting their space to strategy analysis rather than extended quotation. Such coverage works to the detriment of the political process because "when voters encounter game-centered stories, they behave more like spectators than participants in the election, responding, if at all, to the status of the race, not to what the candidates represent."

Campaign coverage in the current presidential election shows all the signs of conforming to Patterson's dismal portrayal. The Times (one of the less egregious offenders among major outlets) has run a plethora of articles in recent days that take on the game-centered approach, essentially disregarding issues in favor of analyzing the supposed motivations of candidates, their strategies and their campaign organization.

There was a story on Pat Buchanan's politically savvy use of local radio, a piece about Dole's attempt to avoid the strategic blunders of past campaigns, an article on why Richard Lugar has not caught fire and on and on and on.

Television coverage has been even more susceptible to the game-centered approach to the campaign. In recent weeks, the Sunday morning "news" shows, featuring the candidates and their spin doctors, have focused their discussions on strategy-based questions as well as the usual soundbite-generators. ("Exactly when will Senator Gramm endorse Senator Dole?" "Can Alexander compete with Dole's money?" "Could you support Buchanan as the nominee?")

Indeed, talk of strategy, organization and the dynamics of the campaign itself have infected the rhetoric of the candidates to a remarkable extent. More so than in the past, candidates are talking about the mechanics of the campaign as part of the campaign, moving the entire electoral process closer and closer to a kind of theater of the absurd.

After the New Hampshire primary, Lamar Alexander attributed his strong showing in large part to his opposition to the use of negative advertisements--and not, say, the belief among voters that he would perform well as president. (Imagine asserting at a job interview that one of your best credentials is that you refuse to criticize any of the other applicants.) He even ran ads attacking Dole for running negative ads.

In another peculiar development, during the televised New Hampshire primary debate Dole criticized Steve Forbes for airing television commercials which he believed were responsible for driving his "positive ratings" towards zero. (Imagine Fidel Castro making a similar complaint against the Kennedy administration.) Forget about proposals, ideas, ability to lead--these guys are too busy criticizing each other's criticisms.

It's as if the campaign has turned on itself. At times it seems that the candidates are perfectly willing to let themselves be perceived as being more caught up in the politics of the campaign than in the politics of the nation. The result of this campaign within a campaign is that issues of governance get relegated to secondary status. The word "issues" itself has been bastardized to the extent that any call for their discussion is tainted by introducing the term itself.

Despite the failings of the media, it appears that there are still ways for candidates with messages to reach the electorate, and in turn for conscientious voters to learn about the candidates.

Buchanan has understood this fact and used it to his advantage in the early going. He is the only candidate in the field whose policy stances have gotten through to the public to any degree, and this is in spite of the mainstream media. Much like Clinton in 1992, he has sought to speak to the American people without the press serving its traditional intermediary role. The former television commentator and newspaper journalist has been appearing on local radio shows and writing newspaper columns, skirting the media filter which has largely intercepted the views of the other candidates.

Because Americans can't rely upon their press, they turn to C-SPAN, talk radio and MTV specials every four years. And even Larry King. If the mainstream media continue to relay information in ways that are less than useful to candidates and voters, then America should totally ignore the networks' game-centered approach to politics. Hopefully, as the mainstream media suffer bad ratings and lower circulation, the media will get the message that politics is more than a game.