Confession of a horserace fan

Posted by Rob Walker on January 25, 2008
Posted Under: America,Entertainment,Politics

Jack Shafer’s fine piece in Slate — In Praise of Horse-Race Coverage — gives me the inspiration, or maybe the intellectual cover, to admit something. Everybody knows that campaign coverage is ridiculous: Too little focus on substance and policy, too much emphasis on image, personality, and “the horserace.” Even after reading Shafer’s piece, I would not really disagree. But even so, the fact of the matter is: I love the horserace.

I don’t mean to suggest that I think it’s all that useful in making a decision about who to vote for. But as Shafer says: “Even if the press corps had abandoned substance, no voter is more than a mouse click away from detailed policy papers and unfiltered campaign speeches by the candidates. If you’re not an informed political consumer this year, you have nobody to blame but yourself.”

What I love about the horserace is the story, or the stories. Not the supposed meta-story that various observers are always trying to extract from the drama, the Big Meaning about What Americans Want. (That story is always the same: “This is the greatest country in the world – and it’s in desperate need of fundamental change.”) What I find riveting is specifically the most horseracey of the horserace stuff: The tactics, the machinations, the personal dramas, the surprises, the petty spats, the cheap shots, the armchair psychoanalysis, the endless deconstruction of a certain remark or background image in a political spot that may or may not have a hidden double-meaning, etc. It’s like a soap opera, or a serialized 19th century novel. Such great characters! Clinton, Obama, Romney, Huckabee – all would make a fine protagonist in a tale of triumph or heartbreak. And that’s what they are! Only one will see his (or her) dream realized – but at what cost? And as for the others: Their hopes will be dashed! I empathize with (almost) all of them at one point or another, including people I wouldn’t vote for on a bet.

What about the constant wrong turns of the horserace press, which is forever headfaking and reshuffling the story of what’s supposed to happen next and how it’s all going? I love the wrong turns! That’s where the suspense comes in. Sometimes the narrative veers so drastically and so quickly — yesterday’s “conventional wisdom” is proven so wildly wrong — that it’s like a soap opera that has to be implausibly revised because one of the lead actors just got a movie deal and left the show. Or, to go a little more highbrow, maybe the horserace press functions as a kind of unreliable narrator. Either way, it’s part of what keeps me engaged.

Anyway, Shafer makes a better case than I ever could about why anti-horserace critiques are wrongheaded. You can check that out and decide for yourself. I guess I could say I’m glad that he’s staving off any threat to the horserace I enjoy so much — but really, we all know it’s never going away. So figure out who you want to vote for… and then enjoy the show.

Further diversion may be found at MKTG Tumblr, and the Consumed Facebook page.

Reader Comments

I can’t argue with this (or just don’t feel like it), but I feel like arguing with the quote from Shafer.

He says, rather breezily, “Even if the press corps had abandoned substance, no voter is more than a mouse click away from detailed policy papers and unfiltered campaign speeches by the candidates. If you’re not an informed political consumer this year, you have nobody to blame but yourself.”

But isn’t it the press’s job to select the important details and filter the unfiltered mass of information? Shafer seems to be implying here that we don’t really need the press anyway. It’s YOUR (who?) responsibility to find the information.

And note the shift to “your responsibility” from what was presumably an issue about the health of our democracy overall. There’s a gap in the logic here. The critics aren’t saying “Help, I can’t figure out how to be an informed political consumer!” They’re saying “If the press emphasized policy, there would be, statistically, more informed political consumers out there.”

But Shafer is a libertarian, so all social issues devolve to individual responsibility.

But, yeah, cover the horserace, man–I can groove on that. Seriously, I even watch Gwen Ifill’s Washington Week in Review chucklefest.

#1 
Written By Warren Nevins on January 31st, 2008 @ 3:48 pm

That’s fair. I can’t really speak for Shafer, but I guess my personal view is that it’s the press’s responsibility AND the voter’s responsibility.

The vibe these days is that “we” consumers* are in control, if that’s so, then “we” can’t blame it all on someone else. Sometimes I feel like there’s a disconnect on this, that the press is now totally irrelevant — and they’re ruining everything! Well, which is it?

I know that’s not what you’re saying at all, and I totally agree with you that it’s also too easy for the press to say, “Ah, they can go read about policy papers if they want to, let’s just write about whether Obama snubbed HIllary” or whatever. But my own personal view is that if I feel uninformed, it is my fault to a large extent, and I do have to take personal responsibility. I am smart enough to find the information that is important to me.

And I’ll get to it just as soon as I finish reading the latest horserace news!

Washington Week In Review, though, I don’t know about that. You are hardcore.

[* Of course when I say that, you have to remember that I’m actually a journalist. So I guess I”m not “we,” I’m “them.” ]

#2 
Written By murketing on January 31st, 2008 @ 4:08 pm

Oh, yeah–I have heard about the new “we are in control” paradigm. I guess the fact that I watch things like “Washington Week” helps explain why I haven’t fully absorbed it. But check it out sometime–that Gwen Ifill is pretty charming, and sometimes the formidable Martha Raddatz appears.

#3 
Written By Warren Nevins on January 31st, 2008 @ 4:53 pm

Add a Comment

please
required, will not be published
optional

Previous Post: