Dickerson Asks the Big Questions

Over at Slate, John Dickerson is launching a new series of articles in which he plans to examine "the the key question each campaign is facing." The first piece in the series is titled: Rudy's Big Question: Is Giuliani too liberal for the GOP?

In his post announcing his plans, Dickerson writes the following:

At the heart of every campaign there is a haunting question, the problem the candidate can never seem to shake. Is Michael Dukakis too liberal? Is George W. Bush too inexperienced? Sometimes the press or opponents manufacture the question, as in: Is Al Gore a big phony? Sometimes, the question comes out of an obvious, inescapable issue, as in 2004: Will the Iraq war sink Bush?

It's encouraging to see Dickerson acknowledge so frankly that the press completely manufactured the "big question" that plagued Al Gore's 2000 campaign. For a long time, no one but Bob Somerby was willing to mention this obvious fact, but lately a few lonely voices in the mainstream media have started to acknowledge the role that the media played in getting George W. Bush elected in the first place.

What Dickerson doesn't seem to realize, however, is that stories like the kind he's planning to write are one of the biggest contributors to this kind of manufactured framing. They give reporters an excuse to perpetuate invidious and often inaccurate narratives through the use of silly rhetorical questions (e.g., does Al Gore have a problem with the truth?).

I know that Dickerson intends to be as fair as possible in asking and answering these "key questions"--and I'm sure he'll do a better job than most of his colleagues would if given the same task--but still, I hate to see campaigns reduced to One Big Question, because that question is almost always the wrong one.

Take for example the question Dickerson poses about Giuliani. There's no doubt that a lot of people are asking this question, but is it really the most important question we should be asking ourselves about Giuliani? It seems to me that while Giuliani's positions on issues like gay rights and abortion are more liberal than a typical GOP presidential candidate, he doesn't care much about those issues and is unlikely to act on them in any meaningful way as president.

There seem to a number of far more pressing questions we should be asking about Giuliani, such as whether he has the temperament to be president or whether he is too much of an authoritarian to be president. For the last 7 years, we've endured a president whose stubborness and inability to tolerate criticism has led to disastrous results. By all accounts, Giuliani shares these same qualities. Our current president has also greatly abused his power, authorizing warrantless surveillance, indefinite detention, and even torture, all in contravention of clearly established laws and constitutional principles. Giuliani is known for his disdain of process and willingness to push the envelope when it comes to the use of his power. Is that really who we want to lead the executive branch for the next 4 to 8 years?

These are the questions people should be asking, and I worry that when people like Dickerson focus on the questions pundits are asking--which are almost always not the most important ones--it simply feeds into pre-existing narratives. I realize Dickerson is trying to make a positive contribution to the debate, but the best way to do that is almost always by focusing on the questions that mainstream pundits aren't asking.