The "media storyline" is the lifeblood of pundits. Like a cozy security blanket, it shelters our national political discourse from original thoughts and dangerous new ideas.
In its glorious self-assurance, it saves us from having to use "facts" and "events" to form an accurate, constantly changing world view. Instead, the talking heads distort those facts for us so that they fit into the storyline. This works out for both sides: Pundits don't have to be bothered to evaluate information, and we can rest easy knowing that no matter what happened today, it will fit into the same comforting notions that existed yesterday.
This leaves our brains free to concentrate on more important things, like the Numa Numa karaoke video or the fine programming on E!
Nowhere is this more evident than in the media's running narrative on the "experience" of each of the presidential candidates. At some point early on in this race, the wise old men of the mainstream press came together and decided who would be experienced veterans, and who would be fresh-faced upstarts.
The "experienced" darts landed on Hillary, Giuliani, Thompson and Richardson, while poor Obama, Edwards, Romney and Huckabee get to see the words "political neophyte" precede their names for the next year and a half.
The following is a quick and dirty guide to these candidates' political resumes.
Hillary: U.S. senator for six years. Being First Lady doesn't count. As Dick Morris said, if just being in the White House counted for experience, we'd be heralding the White House chef as the next Lincoln. This is possibly the only accurate statement Dick Morris has ever made.
Giuliani: Mayor of New York City for eight years. Thompson: U.S. senator for eight years. Richardson: Governor for eight years, U.N. ambassador for two years, Congressman for 14 years, secretary of energy for two years. Okay, I'll give them this one.
Obama: Illinois state senator for eight years, U.S. senator for three. Edwards: U.S. senator for six years. Romney: Governor for four years. Huckabee: Governor for 10 years.
When you line them up, are the differences really that significant (Richardson aside)? Does anyone really think that Hillary, who is portrayed as a battle-hardened politician, is qualified for the presidency with her six years in the Senate, but Obama is disqualified by his three? Why are Edwards' six not given equal weight?
Why does everyone agree Thompson has the experience to be President, but Huckabee is derided as a lightweight? Huck has been in government longer than the former Tennessee senator.
"Hillary is inexperienced" brings up six Google results. "Obama is inexperienced" brings up 2,450. That's what a three-year head start will get you.
The truth is that not only are the differences small, but they're largely irrelevant. There isn't really much practice for being the leader of the free world.
Governors make the pitch that their post gives them the executive experience and management skills important to presidents, and they have a point. But frankly, the "who's most experienced" argument is like two kids fighting over who would make the best driver based on their respective Hot Wheels car sets.
The experience argument is a pointless, inaccurate way for lazy reporters to avoid actually thinking. If a candidate manages to outwit his competitors and seize his or her party's nomination, that should be all the proof anyone needs that they're capable of playing politics with the big boys.
Michael Sherry is a junior majoring in poltical science. He can be reached at michael.sherry@tufts.edu.
