How Not to Waste an Opportunity
CrowdSource 9.2.2024
Welcome to CrowdSource, your weekly guided tour of the latest intellectual disputes, ideological disagreements, and national debates that piqued our interest (or inflamed our passions). This week: the art of the interview.
Join us! CrowdSource features the best comments from The Crowd — our cherished readers and subscribers who, with their comments and emails, help make Wisdom of Crowds what it is.
Why Do So Many Interviews Suck?
After weeks of playing hard to get, the Harris-Walz campaign finally sat down for an interview. The consensus seems to be that it was a flop — not so much for Harris and Walz as for the CNN interviewer, Dana Bash.
No wonder. As comedian Bill Maher observed, Bash did not ask “a single question about abortion, Ukraine, the homeless, the Opioid crisis, the national debt. And then they wonder why the kids get their news from TikTok.”
Fluff. Andrew Sullivan’s reaction: “It was a pathetic 27 minutes, around 5 of which were entirely softball fluff. Lame.”
But what is the purpose of a political interview anyway?
An insight into candidate. Jamelle Bouie suggests that interviews in general should be “about [the candidate’s] theory of the office. How does a candidate for president conceptualize the presidency? What would she prioritize in office and how would she handle an endless onslaught of crises and issues that may, or may not, demand her attention? How does she imagine her relationship with Congress and how would she try to achieve her goals in the face of an opposition legislature? …”
To hem a candidate in. Jason Willick argues that these interviews are not about informing the electorate about the candidate, or helping the candidate make the case for herself. “The only compelling argument against Harris’s media-shielding strategy is that she must answer questions so she will be constrained if she wins … Think of the media not as a co-participant with candidates in the electoral process but as a representative of the American people against political candidates. When reporters ask politicians about abortion, for example, and the politicians offer moderate-sounding assurances, the media is helping to box candidates in — making sure they don’t seize more power than voters meant to hand them.”
The Truth Today > “Access” Tomorrow
The late Christopher Hitchens considered Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci to be the standard-bearer of what an interviewer should be. According to Hitchens, a key to her success is that she risked everything with every interview: “Future ‘access’ to the powerful meant absolutely nothing to her: she acted as if she had one chance to make the record and so did they.” She certainly could get powerful men riled up and squirming and begging:
Robert F. Kennedy, asked about the influence of his late older brother: “I don’t want to talk about this. I don’t want to get into this subject. … But please don’t ask me.”
Henry Kissinger, after several questions about the Vietnam peace talks: “Let’s talk about Machiavelli, about Cicero, anything but about Vietnam.”
Ariel Sharon, after Fallaci asked him if he felt “nothing but contempt” for the PLO: “ … no, don’t interrupt me! Let me respond in my own way!”
But she also got these men to talk — to say things they weren’t planning on saying, to disclose what they wanted to conceal. If you haven’t, sit down and give her interviews a read.
From the Crowd
Subscriber TDish, reacting to our latest podcast episode, “Embrace the Vibes!”:
I think of the positive vibes around the Harris campaign as not only real and organic, but as the result of it being one of those times when you don’t know what you want or need until you get it. And, when you get it, oh boy does it feels wonderful! I spent the three weeks between the Biden debate debacle and his exit from the campaign desperately trying to suppress my rage while writing and calling the Democratic leadership in my state, begging them to pressure Biden to step aside. I told them that to do otherwise was irresponsible and just plain cowardly, and I would not vote for anyone for president unless the Dems gave us another option. (For what it’s worth, I’m an independent and typically don’t go near party politics.) I don’t know how many people called or wrote to their congressional reps, governors, etc., but I have heard anecdotally that the calls were 30 to 1 in favor of pushing Biden out. I’m not sure if that’s democracy at work, but I feel like I did my part and my reps listened.
Did I know that I would embrace my 63 year-old childless cat lady self so quickly after Harris entered the race with not only relief, but pure joy and excitement? I did not, but I clearly needed to release the anger and move on. Am I still worried about the future? Of course. But as you said,
, no one’s talking about civil war anymore. Now, that’s something to celebrate.
See you next week!
Wisdom of Crowds is a platform challenging premises and understanding first principles on politics and culture. Join us!
I don’t think I said that the feel good vibes are the only thing that will compel me to vote for Kamala. I was merely trying to say that the relief and joy I felt at Biden leaving the race and handing the reins to Kamala truly shocked me and made me appreciate the important role emotions and vibes play in politics and people’s perception of candidates. I’m not ashamed to say that I not immune from that phenomenon. Of course, abortion rights are one of the most important substantive issues for me, and I see Kamala as a much better advocate than Biden, and certainly more trustworthy than Trump on the issue. And who knows? Perhaps in a few months we might just be saying, the economy is critical, no doubt, but in the end, it was abortion rights, stupid. We’ll see.
TDish certainly has a right to react however she cares to. But it scares me to death that she is all in Kamala because Kamala makes her feel good.
As bill and Hilary repeated many times, "It's the economy, stupid". I don't care how much any candidate smiles or how much I do or don't like them. What matters is, are they competent? To what extent do they comprehend the issues? To what extent do they have it in them to be the CEO of the most significant government in the world? How capably, and based on what previous experience, will they spend trillions of dollars a year of taxpayer money.
Kamala makes TDish feel good? That's it? No wonder our government is the mess it is. We keep electing people, not on their capabilities, but on their smiles.