0.cached.png
By Newsweek Editors
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Adage alert: the only reliable prediction is that predictions are reliably wrong. Fred Barnes argues in The New Republic this week that absent some cataclysmic event, Bill Clinton is a "goner" against George Bush. He neglects to mention that in February he said exactly the same thing about Clinton in the primaries. Oh well.
Dare I risk looking stupid, too? Here goes: Clinton - or even Ross Perot - will probably win. I could offer a lot of small-bore explanations: how the presence of Carol Moseley Braun as the Democratic candidate for the Senate from Illinois will raise black turnout enough to tip that crucial state into the Democratic column; how Bush has nothing going in California. But let's look instead to the pixilated terrain where campaigns are really fought. Television is more than a place where the candidates posture for the cameras and knife each other. And it's not as simple as who performs better, though Bush could lose on those terms, too. TV is also a metaphor for the country and how it thinks:
The big trend this season on TV is the hard stuff - "60 Minutes," "48 Hours," "Rescue 911." Soon, more than 15 of these shows will be on the air. It's true that "reality based" shows are cheap to make. But there's a larger reason that relates to the mood of the country: lots of viewers have just decided they want real life instead of make-believe.
Read More on News
Let's oversimplify a bit: the '80s were about fantasy; the '90s are about reality. It matters little if unemployment eases. People finally know that unless they're rich, they are worse off than they used to be, even if they have jobs. Their children are likely to be worse off, too. When Bush tries to tell them things aren't so bad, they won't believe him. When he tries to tell them he's the agent of change, they will laugh. The public isn't quite ready to face reality squarely; that would mean painful sacrifice. But angry voters are giving reality a good long sideways glance, which is bad news for all incumbents, including Bush.
The Bush campaign wants to replay its greatest hits from 1988. For instance, parts of Arkansas are as polluted as Boston Harbor. But so what? Unlike entertainment, reality programming can't easily be rebroadcast, which is another way of saying you can't win by fighting the last war. While Bush's attacks against Clinton will obviously hurt, they won't hurt enough to destroy him. Changing the subject from the condition of the country to the personality of his opponent was a neat trick in 1988, but Bush won't have an easy time pulling it off again. And this year we'll know his new "vision" is really Peggy Noonan's. Ventriloquism is a ratings loser.
The greatest damage done to Clinton comes from fresh revelations. If they continue, he's in trouble. But for all of his problems, this guy is no Nixon. The Bush camp will likely be forced in October to recycle March headlines, in which case the controversies will seem stale and won't get much coverage. That means the dirt will be flung not on the news but through paid ads, where it sticks less. And the press is now wise to the old game of trying to get the attack ads covered as news. Instead of winning free air time for the attacks (as in 1988), the aggressor will see his motives and accuracy sharply scrutinized.
Even reality programming needs a script. Perot has one: it's called "Mr. Billionaire Goes to Washington." Clinton has been reading a script, too. It's called "America: What Went Wrong?"--a series in The Philadelphia Inquirer (now a book) that explains in great detail how middle-class Americans have been left with the short end of the stick. Clinton's got the words down and is working on the music. Bush, by contrast, has offered no story line. When he raised the education issue last week, it rang false. Not only was his new plan ripped off from Clinton, but the president-who had thank-you-noted and schmoozed his way into power-has, according to The Washington Post never once lobbied for his education program with the chairman of the key House education committee. When you've got no script, and no idea what to do with the role, the viewers notice.
A special news bulletin in the form of a foreign crisis may keep voters tuned to the Bush network. But if it doesn't, they will zap around the dial. Twelve years is a long time to watch the same program. Four years is a long time to watch the same character. If nothing else, it's a little boring in a country that's hooked on new faces. Bush may lose just because it's time to change the channel.
Americans have short memories. Last month might just as well be last year. What was it we didn't trust about that guy Clinton back last winter? Can't quite remember. In politics, the time between April and November is an eternity. Bush, Clinton and Perot will each be hyped and written off a dozen times by the propeller-heads of the press before the election. Next month, I could argue that Bush is a shoo-in and never get called on it. This election could go anywhichway. "Dynasty," "Dallas," Dan Rather-they all love a cliffhanger.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines