Thursday, 07.24.08

Grammar Police

TIM SLOAN/AFP/Getty Images

Last week, McCain adviser Phil Gramm became the latest campaign surrogate to resign under fire.

I'd like to whine for a bit about Phil Gramm, the former Texas Senator and (much more recently) former campaign co-chair and economics adviser to John McCain. Just about two weeks ago, Gramm gave an interview to the Washington Times -- a friendly organ under most circumstances -- in which he said that ours "is a mental recession," and "We have sort of become a nation of whiners." That last bit wasn't going to fly. A relatively brief scandal and struggle ensued -- Obama said we only need "one Dr. Phil"; McCain threatened to banish his errant adviser to Belarus -- capped by Gramm's resignation at the end of last week.

Thus does Gramm becomes the latest in a long line of advisers who made the mortal mistake of saying what they really think in the presence of journalists. The Democrats already know what this is like. On Obama's side there is Samantha Power, who called Hillary Clinton a "monster," and Austan Goolsbee, who told Canadian officials that Obama had no intention of scuttling NAFTA. Hillary Clinton, if anyone cares to remember, had some Pyrrhic backing from New Hampshire co-chair Bill Shaheen, who wondered aloud if Obama might be susceptible to attacks implying he sold drugs, Geraldine Ferraro, who mused that America was "caught up in the concept" of Obama's race, and -- last but not least -- Bill Clinton, who called Obama's campaign a "fairy tale" and compared him to Jesse Jackson.

This has been the central dramatic theme of campaign season: gaffe followed by outrage; apology followed by repudiation. And all of it is terribly, obviously insincere. Was Hillary Clinton really miffed at being called a monster, or was Obama actually vexed that someone might bring up his hoary drug habit? I doubt it: both Clinton and Obama used the respective comments as a fundraising ploys. Did John McCain suddenly figure out what Phil Gramm thinks about economics? Not very likely. The two spent nearly two decades together in the Senate: either McCain is stupid not to have figured him out, or lying to suggest Gramm won't be coming back.

I have no great love for disgraced former surrogates in general or the disgraced Phil Gramm in particular. I'm actually pleased as punch to subscribe to the view that Gramm is a bumbling, out-of-touch old fool. But at some point it becomes impossible to discuss the substance of American politics -- the merits of NAFTA, the strength of the economy -- when we spend most of the day bickering over how polite the discussion needs to be. Setting aside the only-so-interesting question of whether Gramm is right about the technical definition of recession -- it's two contiguous quarters of negative growth, and we grew during the last -- does thinking exclusively about the fact he used the word "whiners" make us more or less likely to think about the actual merits of the two candidates' fiscal policies?

Yes, these people bring it upon themselves by using apparently offensive words like "whiners" and "monster" and "drugs." And no, Hillary Clinton probably doesn’t eat children for breakfast and kittens for brunch. But the question stands: would you rather live in a world in which politicians and their minions can show the outside world what's actually on their minds -- and suffer the occasional monster -- or a world in which we spend two thirds of waking life trying to get Mark Penn or Samantha Power fired?

Most people claim that they want the former: a world in which genuine politicians take principled stands and express their sincere beliefs that America is so on and so forth. That's the theory. But in practice we recoil at the slightest hint of an honest insult. And sure, the fact that these stories become consequential news is largely the speakers' fault and partly the media's fault, but it's also the public's fault: the media saturation is just supply rising to meet an apparently insatiable demand for theatrical politics. And, incidentally, it creates campaign journalists who are fantastic at covering what an artless idiot Phil Gramm is when he talks about the economy, but less great at covering the actual economy.

If Americans want to have it both ways -- if we want our politicians to be both genuine and utterly banal, honest yet mostly harmless -- we will be disappointed on a regular basis. It's hard to say something sincere without souring the milk of at least a few voters. But if we want to have it both ways, at least we'll always have something to complain about. And if we always have something to complain about, Phil Gramm will have been right about more than the economy.

— Conor Clarke

(12)

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)

By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although The Current does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.