Transcription from:

Interview: PBS documentary – VOTE FOR ME: POLITICS IN AMERICA – Summer 1996

Okay, well, let’s start with a general statement. You’re probably in a good position to answer this because you are familiar with many cultures. Do you think there is an American style of politics and political discourse?

I think there’s a distinctively American style of politics that can be identified both in substance and in style. The style is well-known internationally, especially now, quite widely emulated. That’s to say razzmatazz, bands, balloons, rallies, and pre-arranged photo ops. Well, it’s entered the international language. The Israelis have their elections like that, even the Russians have their elections now quite like that, the British more and more have their elections in that style. And the substance is one where the whole, despite the dramatization of the events, is to create consensus. That’s to say, to exclude issues that can set, speed, divide people. And the encapsulating remark is that in elections, most people run against the politics of division, which is seriously going to gut any idea because politics is division by definition.

Well, what do you think that it serves Americans or why do you think that’s the way it is?

Yes, I think it’s a pity. In other words, with elections should be so confused while in politics, politics being just as, excuse me, I don’t mean I think it’s a, I think it’s something that needs to be regretted. If the electoral process becomes turbulent politics, if we define politics as the art by which people achieve self-government, elections are nothing to do with government at all. They may sometimes choose some of the people who take part in governing. They don’t determine any of the principles published. It’s done only for any of the methods by which it’s done. And increasingly, it seems to me, elections are referenda or plebiscites conducted by politicians to validate decisions for all positions that already made or taken. Thus, they’re not even really a spectator sport because there’s a sinister under-participation in it. Passive people are being conscripted into the process that they are not allowed to fully understand.

What is it that you find appealing about American politics? You’ve been writing about it for quite some time. What is it that you find fascinating or compelling? Why do you like it? What rings your bell?

Well, I suppose what interests me is the use of this society. Are we willing anything of those kinds of things? Because any of your… Yeah, that’s a lot of times great. Look like, yeah, okay, okay. Um, the United States is so various and dramatic that no one person can ever claim to have seen for that, no others never will be anything. It’s full of color and instances. Everything, just take this here, everything from the Million Man March to the militia movement and huge conflicts with society, very much divided and verified against itself. And politics manages to exclude all of this completely by the time an election is conducted.

Any of this drama, color struggle, incident texture has been completely bled out of the picture, and one ends up with a certain kind of pre-selected consensus candidate in front of all candidates, who found in determining to make sure that nothing disturbing and intruding on the picture.

Do you think that’s true? I mean, I would probably say that’s certainly true of the national elections. Do you think that’s true in smaller, you know, local races, gubernatorial races, city council races, all kinds?

I should try to comprise your question. My answer should not, yeah, that’d be well. It should be, yeah, yes. Hey, mommy, be clear what yes, of course. What at the national level, where the whole consensus and of management and smooth running operators is not as great at the local level, specifically the national one.

I remember, for example, going to the gubernatorial election in Louisiana a couple of years ago, where David Duke managed to secure the Republican nomination, and in New Orleans, on the final day, there was no question that there was an election going on and that there was quite a lot at stake in it, and people minded sort of pre-passionately about it. What was sad, I found, was that some were saying by the time the polls have closed, everyone knew what the result was. There was no moment of going to a bar. I went to a David Duke bar, hoping to see the results come in, you know, among his supporters and see the atmosphere changes the different precincts reported and all of that kind of thing. I think it’s the lifeblood of democratic politics, and because the exit polls have told us everything, we knew before we’ve got the first printout. So, I found that was sad because, again, it gave more than the impression sometimes that everything was being run in a parallel universe.

Now, if you talk to people who work in politics, as I’m sure you know, many of them, they love this stuff. I mean, they’re not there because they are many upright people, and they’re passionate about this. They will move off to Nebraska to work on a campaign, you know, at the drop of a hat, you know, for not a lot of money. They’re getting something out of it. Yet, the general public seems to have a completely different attitude towards the political system, at least that’s what we’ve been told. How do you counsel? Just as the election often seems to take place in a parallel universe, people who work in politics are a breed and race apart. That’s another symptom of what I mean. There are those who are in politics, and there’s no sense that politics derives from the electorate or politics derives from society. There’s a just little politicians and there are political animals and operatives.

I know people who live the campaigns, who go anywhere for a campaign, who indeed make their living that way. The money is so sometimes good. It’s not always like the starting rates are very great, but the rewards can be enormous. They love number-crunching. They love to do exit polls. They love to do opposition research. They have a private language, of course. It’s quite well expressed in a movie by Richard Gere, “Power.” I haven’t seen it, but the life of Washington political operative. They’re very adaptable. They’ll work for any old campaign. If you wanted a good example, such a person who’s actually one of the refugees been able to invest this little wonkish world with star quality, George Stephanopoulos is a regular example. He was looking for a candidate about five years ago. He was pretty sure Bush could be defeated.

He decided he wanted to be a kind of Italy Democrat. He was pathetically working for Gephardt. He had welcome to caucus, he ended up working for Clinton. It was essential to send him, he was just looking for a campaign he could join. Other Washington has thousands of people, and I don’t think that those who in the end get to vote have any idea of the life of those who decide what it is they’re going to be voting about, if anything.

Do you think people like that who essentially are in a campaign, gypsies do issues matter to them, or are they basically just looking for a candidate they can win? I mean, what’s more important for these people?

The thing that has often struck me, in talking to the professional policy wonk or campaign gypsy, is how little it matters to them, even if their candidate should win. I remember particularly having the ceiling and the close the Dukakis come in various people in Washington have been drafted, often from other senatorial campaigns to work for the campaign’s. If you talk to them about the upcoming debate with works and said look, if you go Dukakis discretion, oh sorry, let’s wait away with, I’ll go find him. I can do that again. Okay, now if you feel a specific like about Stephanopoulos, even though it’s a good point, I think it’s going to be too specific, we think so a bit. I thought I could risk it because he is well-known.

You know, it’s fine. It just then to have a name like that and have next chapter name recognition decided once personal interests that we use this set models will never be the character in stone well like so the order if I don’t have a few convictions, I think. I think they all do, but I think that they are also exciting the fragment some of the powers going to be really amazing if you let me know when you’re speeding against are kick. All right, where were we? People I don’t hear you say, I was giving a use David good. Yeah, it’s going to be Tuesday. It’s gravity-specific. Oh gosh, uh button. Well, okay, I’ll have to mean. I can be general. I always feel I need to run home an example. Okay, what should I do that one again? Yeah, why don’t ya just talk about you know issues and convictions among the people work in case? I might be unfair to say we’re not seem unfair to say that some of these professional campaign political junkies gypsies lunks whatever you wish to turn them have no convictions. I’m sure that they must have privately.

I mean, it’s very hard to conceive the human being who doesn’t. But what you can’t say, I think, is how little those convictions matter often to them in how they select which counties are going to work for or how they’re going to present that candidate. In point of fact, I can remember very vividly in the closing stages of the bush Dukakis race, a number of people were being drafted into the campaign off other campaigns, other states, other Democratic resources came into Washington. I went to parties where they were. I would say to them, “Look, in this upcoming debate between the counties in Bush, if the carriers say this equal republish in a defensive posture,” he said that he would really embarrass him. They really went listening at all. It wasn’t because of my boring droning hypnotically del delivery, it was because that I was completely missing the point of the campaign. The point was entirely one of packaging, presentation, and so forth, and they would be willing to do this for any candidate, too.

Many of them were talking about their next campaign, as it had become obvious to them that they just had to work out their contract and then go find someone else to work for. It’s like certain seedlings actually spread themselves this way and pollination, this matting, attach themselves to the fleece of passing dog or sheep and in that way, distributing themselves. Well, it’s not unlike what they’re doing. Why are they doing it? Then we just show that intervening door. I think good, we, my little boy England, okay, okay. So there, you know, so why do they do it if not to press their views on a wider problem?

Mr. Ward just wrote a novel with the title “Honor Power Riches Fame and the Love of Women.” These supposed rewards all the ambitions of every man. Anyway, I don’t think many of those things come to the professional politician, though it is possible to enrich yourself as a professional political operative. I think they do it because, actually sometimes I’m asking myself now of the ones I know, I find a very difficult matter to associate excuses to you. I think that they do it for the vicarious connection with power. I think that, to them, just that picture, perhaps on the piano in later years, whereas the candidate makes his acceptance speech, and off to the left of someone, no one’s bothered to identify in the caption, that’s their man. That’s enough.

Some people that’s a really quite poignant element, and I think there are people who like to be first with the news. Probably one of the few advantages of the job is, now if you live in Washington, work on this kind of campaign, you live in that sort of world. Very often you don’t have to rely on the newspapers for information, and that is a nice feeling, and when you read the papers, you know more than they do. You can tell your relatives things in advance, and your friends. There is a thrill to that, and I think it’s very addictive to know the idea of having that oxygen cut off with a. We’ve seen an appalling one, and as a result, people are willing to switch parties as well as candidates, if necessary, in order to stay in the game. And I can think of many people who can.

But would you say they’re looking for generally a moral profession or a cynical profession? Or going to be different constrictor. Let’s, we can paddle our politics, yelling that just just analysis, the behind these people.

Well, unlike every profession, the question comes liberalism. As with every profession, the question’s bound to arise: does this profession have any professional ethics to it? Well, no, really, because they would all have to say, if they were honest, and they will all say actually, even if you don’t ask them, the winning isn’t the main thing, it’s the only thing. And that really employs it is absolutely true because there’s no place for those who come in second near awards. Lobbyists will not call. Campaign donations will cease to arrive. Itself, so yeah, it’s, it’s not sense completely unethical. And, well now, hold it, hold its data yet, the country on a certain level functions fine. I mean, people sometimes feel like they’re in these areas, you need your met, and they’re represented. So this is there something about the system that’s working. Is it generally designed to just work this way and be a mess? They’ll, you know, soldier on.

Transcription in progress.