BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

The death of peccadillo politics…

22 comments on The death of peccadillo politics…

The death of peccadillo politics…

: The real import of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s election is that sins and indiscretions will no longer be the basis on which we elect — no, the basis on which politicians and media think we elect — our leaders.

From this day forward, anyone running for office who’s caught in a past personal misdeed can point to Schwarzenegger and say: See, even after what they said about his past — even after what he admitted — even though this came out before the vote, still, he got elected. Hell, he got a landslide.

The people have spoken. They — no, we — are not as simple- and single-minded as you think. We know that politicians, above all people, are merely human (could there be a more obvious statement?). We don’t discard them because of past sins. That’s not how we select our leaders. We, the people are wiser than that — and if you don’t believe that, then you don’t believe in democracy.

So let this serve as notice to operatives, reporters, and editors (are you listening, LA Times?) that the goal of government and reporting on it is not the gossipy Gotcha! moment.

The goal is telling the people whether the goverment run in their name is run in their interest. The goal is to report whether our leaders are doing a good job.

Bill Clinton did not get thrown out of office but Gray Davis did. Bill Clinton had a sexual scandal. Gray Davis did not. Bill Clinton did a good job running the government. Gray Davis did not. That’s why Clinton stayed and Davis did not. That’s how Schwarzenegger got elected and Davis got recalled.

The moral to this story could not be clearer.

This, fellow citizens, is the dawn of the age of performance politics.

22 responses to “The death of peccadillo politics…”

  1. Pele Avatar
    Pele

    Politics by popularity. How long untill the gangster rappers want a piece???

  2. Lisa Williams Avatar
    Lisa Williams

    And thank God for it too; I was tired of it back in the Clinton administration and I didn’t like it any better here. I’m not electing someone vestal virgin, I’m electing them to a political office.
    There are acts and/or crimes that I think would cause me not to vote for someone, but consensual sex (even if it is extramarital) is not one of them.
    Do you think media attention devoted to past or current behavior around sex diverts attention from, or is more widely covered than, serious misbehavior by candidates or elected officials that actually affect the electorate? If the Plame allegations are true, for example, I think that’s much more important than a scandal regarding consensual sex. One thing about sex scandals is that I think they absorb the public’s attention because they can relate to them. Nearly everybody has at least “committed adultery in their heart,” as Jimmy Carter famously said, but few of us can relate to outing a CIA agent after launching a war based in part on evidence about Nigerian Uranium that the CIA agent’s husband claims is untrue. We read about that, perhaps, in Ludlum novels, but we can’t personally relate to it. So what makes the news? Sex, not stories that may sound like (and have as complicated plots as) spy novels. But what if the sex doesn’t matter and the spy novel is both important and real?

  3. Chris Josephson Avatar
    Chris Josephson

    I hope you’re right. I’m *SO TIRED* of the ‘bashem’ style. I stopped reading and listening to news during the ‘get Clinton’ years.
    I tune off all the Bush bashers.
    I would have been so angry as a California voter about the ‘gropings’ reported in the LA Times. My first reaction was, these women were so upset that they waited for 20+ years to report this? Puhleeze! If I had a subscription to the LA Times I would have cancelled it.
    Maybe it wasn’t, but it *seemed* as if the LA Times was working with the Dems. to discredit Arnold. It wasn’t being an impartial observer. It became part of the Davis camp.
    In case anyone thinks I bury my head in the sand and refuse to hear bad news.. I have no problem with anyone bringing up legitimate issues about how the candidate, or elected official, has dealt or is dealing with issue X. THAT’S WHAT I WANT. How are the people we elect dealing with specific issues?
    The good, bad, ugly. Laid out with sources and quotes. Not jumping on some bandwagon or repeating facts that have been discredited. Stop the fluff. I want the meat. Also, if a paper goes after one candidate’s errors, I’d like to see it do the same with the other candidates. All with equal vigor.
    If the media were to do this, they’d be trusted more. As it is now, there are very few media outlets I really trust. Actually, I trust blogs far more. For the next presidential campaign I’m going to bookmark blogs that support all candidates running for president. Then look for blogs that seem neutral (if possible). But I want to be able to check up on the facts released by each side and see if they are correct. Blogs can help do this far more than any media.

  4. Morgan Avatar
    Morgan

    politics by performance?
    I’m sorry, I think you mean politics by popularity. I wonder if anyone who voted for Arnold has a clue what his platform was… I wonder if Arnold knew for that matter.

  5. Seyed Razavi Avatar
    Seyed Razavi

    Not having a platform is a great asset: You become a blank canvass for all the hopes and dreams of the electorate. Add a touch of celebrity and a high profile populist team of advisers and you got yourself an office. w00t.

  6. imt Avatar
    imt

    The insight that Clinton wasn’t removed from office for lying about sex while Davis was removed for general incompetence is an interesting view. However, I would have loved to see exit polling in California where voters were questioned about whether they would have voted Clinton out of office in a re-call election if given the chance. Remember, Clinton had to be voted out by 67 members of the U.S. Senate. I’m not sure he would have survived a national recall vote by the electorate, particularly given the resources his opponents would have utilized to demonize him. It makes for an interesting debate but I’m not sure you can compare the two situations in any meaningful way.

  7. John Irving Avatar
    John Irving

    Morgan, it’s been pretty clear for two months now what Schwarzenegger’s positions are. He’s fiscally moderate, meaning he approves of social programs but wants them to run more efficiently and be responsible, and is very socially liberal. Which makes him the perfect kind of Republican for California, just enough conservatism to run things without the puritan streak that dooms traditional GOP candidates.

  8. cmonks Avatar
    cmonks

    You think Arnold would still have won in a landslide if he wasn’t a movie star who spent 20 million dollars on a three-month campaign, yet still had a long history of sexual indiscretion? You can’t cite this election as a dawn of a new era of political campaigning: it’s Arnold frickin’ Schwarzenegger.
    The “real import” of this election is that now voting doesn’t mean much. Why should Joe and Jill American bother voting if big money propaganda machines can do away with the results and start the process all over.
    Gee, you think there is any chance there’ll be a recall of Arnold a year from now? You betcha. Dems are just as petty and power-hungry as Repubs.
    Bye Bye Cali. Was great to know you.

  9. John Irving Avatar
    John Irving

    Considering 60% of California voted Republican, cmonk, I doubt there’ll be another recall, particularly next year. The Dem’s won’t want to put themselves having to fight for the California State House and the White House all at the same time.
    As for the “sexual indiscretion” so bloody what? It’s not like he commited perjury or anything.

  10. Dann Avatar
    Dann

    Jeff-
    Sorry to disagree, but glad that you are open to hearing the disagreement.
    The differences between Arnold and Mr. Clinton are more striking than you suggest. Arnold’s crude behavior indicated one character flaw. Mr. Clinton’s past indicated several and varied character flaws that should have disqualified him for office in the eyes of the electorate. I would add that Arnold’s proven business acumen makes him a more qualified political candidate than Mr. Clinton.
    Of course, the success of style over substance would seem to be proven in both the case of Arnold’s and Mr. Clinton’s election.
    And the absence of Democratic outcry over Cruz Bustamonte’s ties to a hispanic supremacist organization and use of derogatory racial epithets is also deafening.
    Nothing has changed. Victory with a less than acceptable candidate that mouths the proper phrases is still preferable to losing with an acceptable candidate is still the hallmark of American politics. And it remains the cornerstone of Democratic politics.

  11. rossi Avatar
    rossi

    im sure this was a reaction
    to half of american
    realizing how we’d really ruined a great presidency of mr clintons
    just because he put his pecker in the wrong place
    and now our economy is in the toilet
    and we’ve got a retart
    for president
    i say
    give us a horny man
    with many and varied sexual indiscretions
    who can actually
    do a good job in office
    any day
    and take all those
    old boy pricks
    with their inflated christian values
    and send them packing

  12. John Modesto Avatar
    John Modesto

    Performance politics would be great, but its unlikely that such an “era” is really being ushered in. Most future voters will be too misinformed of politicians’ performance, due to biased mainstream media, to truly drive a performance based politics paradigm. The posts here about Arnold’s win being based on popularity also miss the point. The election was about voting for change. Any voter with half a brain knew that if something doesn’t change, California is headed for ruin. Any charismatic moderate candidate, democrat or republican, whose platform was about changing the status quo of state government could have won this race.

  13. Dann Avatar
    Dann

    rossi-
    Precisely what did Mr. Clinton do to create a good economy??
    He signed NAFTA. Good for large parts of the economy and essentially a GHW Bush initiative.
    He fought with a GOP led Congress. No major new spending initiatives, also good for the economy.
    Neither of which required much on the part of Mr. Clinton.
    Precisely what has Mr. Bush done to kill the economy?
    Nothing. It was tanking for 9 months before he was sworn in.
    Although this continued deficit spending WILL hurt our economy in the future, our current difficulties are the product of movements in the private sector rather than as a result of governmental policy.

  14. Pele Avatar
    Pele

    I see big cuts in spending and TWO big tax increases.
    California Uber Alles

  15. PhotoDude Avatar
    PhotoDude

    I think the real message was in the “sins and indescretions” you mentioned at first.
    I think this shows a politician can admit, “hey, sins were committed, it was wrong, and I’m sorry,” and the people usually will allow him a chance to get on with the job.
    I think that kind of approach is far preferable to the “I don’t have any idea” approach. A lot more likely to be successful in the long term, for sure.

  16. KMK Avatar
    KMK

    I think your right Jeff. The voters of CA smacked the LA Times right in the face. This should serve as a message that media doesn’t control public opinion no matter how manipulative it tries to be. My hope would be that media including bloggers took notice.
    Something else happened. Totten pointed out today the emergence of a new party within our two party system. Conservative Libertarian’s. If that means searching within our two party system to find them then so I shall. I have waited in vain for the left to reclaim its enlightenment roots and find myself more in the center then ever before in my life. Judging by CA voter turnout I’m not alone.

  17. anon Avatar
    anon

    “Performance politics” from an actor? That’s arch of you.
    Not substance politics, solutions politics, visionary politics, but “performance.” How silly.

  18. A.W. Avatar
    A.W.

    Not necessarily, Jeff. I think the voters of Cali might have ignored it because they felt the LA Times was playing dirty tricks. I mean even Susan Estrich said that was what it was. So maybe if the LA Times released the story at a less suspicious moment, then Arnold might have been more affected.
    Btw, I have the goods on the LA Times and their bias here:
    http://mysite.verizon.net/res1uo0x/

  19. Hoodie Craw Avatar
    Hoodie Craw

    I’m not sure voters ignored Arnolds past indiscrections because of anything written in the LA Times. I think they ignored it because they knew it was coming, expected him to have a shady past, and would have been secretly disappointed if he had not. He does not have a “sainted” image to break.
    Tom Hanks, on the other hand, would have creamed Arnold, had he even thought of running. But dirt on him, paradoxically, would have been killer.
    I am afraid the type of forgiveness granted to Arnold’s sins is only bestowed on people like him – Jesse Ventura, say – but rarely makes the leap to the regular politico circle, where Prudery is king.

  20. A.W. Avatar
    A.W.

    Hoodie
    You might be right, but if I was a californian, I would have been tempted to vote Arnold just to piss the LA Times off.
    Maybe that’s just me.
    [And by “Arnold” I am referring to Gary Coleman, who played Arnold on Difft Strokes.]

  21. Karen Avatar
    Karen

    I am a Californian. I stood in line to vote for the first time since the “we” elected Davis to office. I stood in line for 25 minutes! I signed in on a page with other signatures. Typically, my family is the only one on the page to sign in.
    Californians voted with their pocketbooks. No other issue has brought out this many voters. Nothing spurs people on like taxing them to death and watching special interest groups buy the state government.
    I too was not surprised that the LA Times found women in the woodwork to bring out near election time. In my opinion, not much neutral reporting happens at the LA Times. It isn’t even fit to wrap fish.
    I hope that this is a trend in politics that lets the elected know that they are responsible to the electorate and that we know how to fix it when they are not. I think many people had lost faith in the system and that’s why so few people were voting in “off year” elections. I’d like to see more than 25% of the voters out at all the elections.

  22. Owen Avatar
    Owen

    Thanks for the link, A.W. I’ve been kvetching for years about the L.A. Times, but nobody’s listened!