As I’ve said in the past this is what irks me with the presidential forums. More on fluff , less on substance. More on gimmickry, less on actual policy.<\/p>\n
I had, I have to admit, hoped that the nation\u2019s experience with George W. Bush \u2014 who got within hanging-chad distance of the White House precisely because Al Gore was punished for actually knowing stuff \u2014 would have cured our discourse of this malady. But no. Why not?
\nChait professes himself puzzled by the right\u2019s intellectual insecurity. Me, not so much. Here\u2019s how I see it: in our current political culture, the background noise is overwhelmingly one of conservative platitudes. People who have strong feelings about politics but are intellectually incurious tend to pick up those platitudes, and repeat them in the belief that this makes them sound smart. (Ezra Klein once described Dick Armey<\/a> thus: \u201cHe\u2019s like a stupid person\u2019s idea of what a thoughtful person sounds like.\u201d)<\/strong>
\nInevitably, then, such people react with rage when they\u2019re shown up on their facts or basic logic \u2014 it\u2019s an attack on their sense of self-worth.
\nThe truly sad thing, though, is the way much news reporting goes along with the condescension meme. That\u2019s Waldmann\u2019s point. You really, really might have expected that the Bush experience would give reporters pause \u2014 that they might at least ask themselves, \u201cIsn\u2019t it my job to ask whether a politician is right<\/em>, as opposed to how he comes across<\/em>?\u201d
\nBut NOOOO! [\/Belushi]
\nvia You\u2019re So Vain – Paul Krugman Blog – NYTimes.com<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"As I’ve said in the past this is what irks me with the presidential forums. More on fluff , less on substance. More on gimmickry, less on actual policy. I had, I have to admit, hoped that the nation\u2019s experience with George W. Bush \u2014 who got within hanging-chad distance of the White House precisely … <\/p>\n