The press corps often gets divided into liberals and conservatives (OK, OK, liberals dominate), but a much more useful distinction is between ““consensualists’’ and the less common ““contrarians.’’ The consensus types, whatever their own political orientation, follow the polls as closely as any politician, then write with an eye to their audience’s preferences of the moment. Their instinct is to keep the tone of their coverage harmonious with the prevailing political surround. The only real question that concerns them is ““How’s he doing politically?’’ If the president is popular with the public, they generally treat him nicely. If he’s not popular, they pounce. When the polls shift – or a story breaks that sends the pack off in the opposite direction – the tone changes. That’s predictable, lazy-minded and contrary to journalism’s mission of aiding the underdog, but it makes good business sense in the media marketplace. The subtext is, Everybody loves a winner, so let’s puff ’em when they’re up and kick ’em when they’re down. Let’s comfort the already comfortable and afflict the already afflicted.
At the other extreme is the contrarian, countercyclical model. If forced to choose, I lean this way because it’s fairer, more surprising and challenges settled thinking. When a politician’s getting pushed around by everyone else, you look (not strain, look) to find something positive to say instead of just piling on. When he’s on top, you take him down a few notches where appropriate. Taken too far, this can be artificial and at odds with the facts. But as long as you’re careful not to portray minor accomplishments as great successes or major accomplishments as great failures, a modest act of contrarian contrivance is a healthy impulse.
The two approaches – one poll-driven, the other provocative – sometimes commingle. If Bob Dole can find any traction in the polls (the consensualist standard), he would get a contrarian boost. The expectations for Dole are so low in debates, for instance, that if he cracks a few one-liners and avoids drooling, he’ll be declared the winner.
Gingrich, on the other hand, is still not ready for the ride back up the escalator. He gives a terrific speech on public education that is full of good ideas for increasing accountability for high standards (for example, high schools that offer diplomas to students who can’t read should be forced to help pay the later costs of remedial work). No one notices.
When Clinton was low in the polls, I argued that Whitewater was badly hyped as a scandal and that his first-term record – strong job growth, crime down, deficit and federal bureaucracy cut – was far more solid than generally understood. With a huge change in the polls (taking Clinton over 50 percent for the first time since he became a national figure), perhaps I should be arguing that Whitewater is worse than Watergate, a horrible scandal waiting to explode. That I can’t must mean I’m not a full-fledged, card-carrying contrarian. Or perhaps it’s not time for that yet. There were so many rotten tomatoes thrown at this president for so long that his face is only just now drying off.
All the same, isn’t it fascinatin’, as Ross Perot might say, how soft the tone of the Clinton coverage has suddenly become? Why hasn’t there been more attention paid to new revelations that Clinton gave a secret Arkansas wink to Iranian arms merchants supplying the Bosnian Muslims? This violated the arms embargo and his own word, not to mention providing Iranian extremists their first-ever foothold in Europe. Another example: in 1993 the White House fought hard for a 4.3-cents-a-gallon gas tax as a central element of its economic plan and showed little interest in a minimum-wage increase. Now the gas tax is being casually tossed overboard and the minimum wage is a huge priority. There’s actually a decent explanation of why a minimum-wage increase wasn’t advisable then (business was already being threatened with employer mandates for health care) and why it is necessary now (the wage is at historic lows), but the administration is under little pressure to make that case. And more: Clinton caved on curbing lawyers – no price. He went to a fund-raiser at the home of a tobacco lobbyist last week – no one even coughed.
One thing’s for sure about Clinton – he’s no contrarian. Occasionally he’ll tell an audience what it doesn’t want to hear, but only as a means of reaching a larger audience that wants to hear it. On the other hand, he’s a much-improved consensualist. Garry Wills, among others, has argued that finding consensus, not striking out in entirely new directions, is the essence of leadership. At first Clinton had a tin ear for what the country wanted, as his failure to compromise earlier on health care proved. Now he has a much surer understanding of the rather sophisticated and settled consensus of the country. Americans want to fight crime – but not without any gun control. They want public housing and job training – but with vouchers instead of big bureaucracies. They’ll accept managed care – but not deep Medicare and Medicaid cuts. They thirst for family values and parental responsibility – but not at the expense of tolerance. Sensing consensus and tilting toward it is wrong for a reporter. But it’s right for a president, and it’s why he’s riding so high right now.
