Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
FOLKSY CHARM.
Katha Pollitt weighs in on left-leaning male pundits who swoon for Republican candidates. In 2000, she says, it was John McCain. But in 2008:
This time round, the so-called-liberal-media men's Republican sweetheart is Mike Huckabee. He plays the bass guitar! He cares! He's not a total maniac like the other evangelical Christians even though he doesn't believe in evolution and probably thinks you're going to Hell! Ari Berman declares him "humble, decent, and funny." In The New Yorker, Rick Hertzberg is surprised to find himself charmed: Huckabee is "funny," "reassuringly ordinary" in appearance and demeanor, "curiously unthreatening" in affect; he speaks "calmly" and declines to serve up "red meat" on abortion, immigration, the Clintons, and other issues dear to rightwingers' hearts.
Pollitt cites several writers who have written glowing accounts of Huckabee's lovable traits. Never mind the fact that he wants to create Constitutional amendments banning gay marriage and abortion. He's down to earth -- even if he thinks the earth is only 6,000 years old!
Perhaps male pundits are all masochists, as Pollitt posits. But in reality, these pundits glowing over Huckabee probably do find his social views fairly abhorrent. I think the appeal is really Huckabee's "folksy charm," which the press corps always falls for. A better comparison than McCain would be Bill Clinton or George Bush, who both got glowing attention from the press (especially male pundits) for being the guy they'd most like to have a beer with. After months of grueling campaigning, bickering, and horse-race, pundits are desperate to identify with the candidate on a personal level, and male pundits seem to best identify with the aw-shucks, decent guy's guy. Unfortunately, these guys are the ones that provide the narrative for everyone else.
--Kate Sheppard
COMMENTS (10)
But he actually IS funny and charming, without the harsh edge McCain later cultivated. He'd make a terrible president, and I sure hope he's not elected-- but I see no reason to pretend he's an unlikable guy.
Posted by: Anthony Damiani | December 6, 2007 11:36 AM
Kate, I hate to disagree with you but the press *hated* Clinton's "folksy charm" and considered him, and attacked him, for the very thing that drew ordinary voters towards him. Bush, on the other hand, marketed his "folksy charm" for all it was worth but actually, as press accounts show during his presidency, was hostile and actively agressively rejecting of the press corps most of the time. Google George Bush and ribs, the phrse "major league asshole" or any number of other phrases and you will find Bush expressing unveiled hostility towards a largely supine press corps.
The press *only* loves folksy guys who they think are right wing. they hate "folksiness" when it comes from liberals or northerners.
aimai
Posted by: aimai | December 6, 2007 11:38 AM
The 'charm' of these 'folksie' candidates, like Huckleberry, Clenis, and the Chimp, is that they have a way of letting the pundits and mavens feel superior.
Feeling superior is the one perqs enjoyed by almost every driven, 'career' reporter I've ever known (12 yrs in the newz biz, writer and editor).
Posted by: woody, tokin librul | December 6, 2007 11:43 AM
There has long been a misconception -- pushed and massaged by the media -- that voters want to vote for the candidate they'd like to have a beer with.
The truth is that the ones dying for that barstool next to the candidate are the media.
Posted by: CJR | December 6, 2007 11:44 AM
"who doesn't tire of analyzing policy positions?"
Can you tell me when, where and from whom among these people this type of analysis appears?
Posted by: Farinata X | December 6, 2007 12:02 PM
woody, tokin librul,
that was one of the press's problems with both Clinton and Gore. They were seriously overawed and angry that Clinton was both a Rhodes Scholar *and* a glad handing good old boy. They took that embarrassment and rage out on Gore because they didn't like the notion that he was smarter and harder working than they were.
aimai
Posted by: aimai | December 6, 2007 12:09 PM
What is it with guys and their beer? And why are guys with their beers deemed to be more rational than women? Weird.
Posted by: Carol | December 6, 2007 1:30 PM
Perhaps male pundits are all masochists, as Pollitt posits. But in reality, these pundits glowing over Huckabee probably do find his social views fairy abhorrent.
Well, it's not like his abhorrent views are going to greatly inconvenience privileged white males, if implemented as policy.
Posted by: latts | December 6, 2007 3:41 PM
I think we're forgetting all the women who swooned over Bill Clinton (at least before they learned he didn't exactly treat women very well).
Posted by: Ross | December 6, 2007 4:01 PM
It's got nothing to do with the folksy charm - that's just the excuse, now that the press corps has realized how well Huck's doing.
When it looked like Rudy was going to walk off with the nomination, or that Fred Thompson was going to be the one, they dropped the "beer test" metric in favor of a bunch of chatter about how Americans were looking for someone manly, a daddy who could keep us safe.
No, I don't know why they do this. But the track record is too extensive to be coincidental: they're working a lot harder to find reasons to like Republican candidates, and reasons to dislike Dem candidates, than the other way around.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | December 6, 2007 7:50 PM