At Thursday night's Democratic debate, CNN's Wolf Blitzer deployed a kind of populist-media Big Lie, and Barack Obama, showing his inexperience, walked right into his trap. Whether it was out of naiveté or just plain intellectual stubbornness, the senator hurt himself badly, and perhaps even mortally.
The issue on which Obama tripped, as you know, was that of issuing drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. Until Hillary fudged in Philadelphia, it was, as The Politico noted, "a marginal issue that has been abandoned even by most immigrant-rights groups." It was also a wholly state-oriented question; one that didn't lend itself to presidential decision making or presidential prerogative. And it was, as Hillary rightly noted in the city of Brotherly Love, a nationally obscure but nevertheless highly charged "gotcha" matter.
Given the two-week-old history of this dubious question of now-looming national urgency, it was indeed shocking that Obama hadn't readied himself for its Las Vegas resurrection with a slick soundbite signifying nothing -- just to move on, like swatting at a fly. Any concise emptiness would have done the job; any brief mumbo-jumbo that circumvented any perilous sign of thoughtfulness.
As one seasoned campaign operative -- "long lost to every decency" -- once told then-political reporter H.L. Mencken, "In politics, man must learn to rise above principle." Maybe the chief principle to be conquered by the successful pol is that of addressing complexity -- recognizing it, and admitting its inherent difficulties in the public arena.
This, Obama initially refused to do. Instead, he launched into a scramble of explanation on the drivers license issue, balancing this side against that.
As I sat and watched him digging his hole on this matter that Democrats are now nearly as negatively excited over as Republicans, a singular thought flashed across my mind: Bye-bye, Obama. It screamed a campaign-ending, George Romney "brainwashed" moment; an Ed Muskie tearful moment; a Walter Mondale "I'll raise your taxes" moment. Here was blithering "authenticity" on display, which, without calculation, can be as lethal as even more authentic foot-tapping in a men's room.
"I am not proposing that that's what we do," said Obama, trying to elbow some reason into the topical mess -- as Hillary and NY's governor had so unfortunately done before -- and merely proposing that the issue wasn't, in fact, amenable to tidy, 100-percent answers.
But it was Wolf Blitzer's interruption that disturbed as well, and perhaps even more. Interrupting Obama, Blitzer lashed out: "This is the kind of question that is sort of available for a yes or no answer."
No, Wolf, it isn't.
Spiffy yes or no answers and pithy demagoguery may make your job easier -- after all, a clean yes or no can relieve you of following up, as you found yourself so relieved by Hillary's curt "no" -- and their dumbed-down quintessence may appeal to a much wider cable-TV audience. But complex issues such as immigration are unresolved precisely because they're ... well, complex. Ultimately, decisions must be made, of course, and actions taken. But to corner a candidate into an unthoughtful absolute, just for absoluteness' sake, contributes nothing to the debate. Indeed, it inhibits it.
In a healthy democracy, cable outlets such as CNN would encourage complexity of thought and nuance of positions, since we happen to live in a complex and nuanced world. Scoffing at anything less than a black-and-white, yes or no answer to these complexities contributes nothing but better ratings.
Your scoff was a cheap sell-out, Wolf. And you know it. You suppressed the questioning of others on the issue (there are, in fact, related issues of national security and transportation safety involved), and instead demanded debate-ending simplicity -- in a debate.
Shame on you, Wolf. And woe to Obama, should he ever again feel like giving an honest answer to a complex question.
****
... to support p m carpenter's commentary, and thank you!