‘The quaint artifact of name recognition’

The Atlantic’s (and, occasionally, NPR’s) James Fallows piles on the political media with this takedown of the coverage of Donald Trump:

Speaking of carnival barkers: Every member of the political press knows that the chance of Donald Trump becoming the 45th President of the United States is zero. I say that the chance of Sarah Palin becoming president is extremely low but greater than zero. I will take any bet at any odds against Trump becoming president, for reasons I’ll boil down to this: the same circumstances that would make Obama so vulnerable that a Trump could beat him (economic, political, military, or social chaos of any kind you want to imagine), would simultaneously motivate the Republican party to choose a “real” candidate with the best chance of winning the election and running the government. That is, if the Republicans think they have a serious chance to win, they’re not going to blow that chance with Trump.

My real point is: knowing for sure that Trump’s “lead” in the GOP polls now is a quaint artifact of name recognition, and knowing that there is no chance that his “colorful” background and prima donna manner could stand the long grueling, humiliating ordeal of the primaries and the caucuses and the endless interviews, how long will the press keep acting as the megaphone for this carnival barker? Why aren’t they jumping all over him now, for the patent idiocy of his “birther” claim, rather than acting as if somehow he has scored a point by making Obama react? In reality, he’ll be on the stage with the press’ megaphone until people get bored with him — which gradually but undeniably has happened to Palin.

This isn’t the first time we’ve seen infatuation with a candidate. Two words: Ross Perot. Two more: Jesse Ventura. Celebrity candidates fill the vacuum of an election season that starts too soon.

In many ways, politicians have nobody but themselves to blame for the coverage of people they privately mock. As I’ve mentioned many times previously over the years, Jesse Ventura raced to the top the day he was allowed to participate in a debate with Skip Humphrey and Norm Coleman in Brainerd in October 1998 (Listen in RealAudio). They spoke “politician.” Ventura didn’t.

He also didn’t fade by the time election day came along. And shortly after his election, local media — including MPR — started doing something they’d rarely done before: accompanied the state’s governor on trade missions. Trust me. It wasn’t to cover the significant commercial issues between Minnesota and Japan, or China, or Mexico, or Cuba. It was because there was always a pretty fair chance Jesse Ventura would say something outrageous, and nobody wanted to miss it.

That’s just the way things work in political coverage and when President Obama complained about the situation today, it wasn’t the first time he figured it out, either.

Ross Perot knew this, too, in the race for president almost 20 years ago. Months before the election, Perot was drawing a respectable 21 percent in the polls, and getting a fair amount of coverage. It peaked in the summer at about 39 percent. He was entertaining and could be counted on for a great sound clip.

Eventually, stories came out about Perot being a control freak, and his campaign collapsed when he alleged the George H.W. Bush campaign was out to sabotage his daughter’s wedding.

It’s a vicious cycle. “Celebrity candidates,” knowing they can’t win, have the luxury of saying outrageous things, get coverage for saying outrageous things, raise their profile because of the coverage, show up in polls, and then get more coverage because they show up in the polls.

When does the cycle end? When news organizations get bored with the story line and turn on the celebrity whose political swagger they helped create. Ventura’s genius — if there was any — was jumping into the campaign so late, he didn’t give the media time to get over its infatuation with him.

  • Jim Shapiro

    If specimens like Ronnie and George Jr. can become president…

  • Tyler

    Celebrity candidates fill the vacuum of an election season that starts too soon.

    Theorem #2: Celebrity candidates fill the vacuum of an election season when there are no other serious candidates.

    Who among the “serious” Republican candidates show real leadership? Romney? Pawlenty? Etc? Trump has a chance because the Republican party has signed on to Unseriousness. Look at the birther blowup. They’ve nurtured it for this long…now it’s exploding in their faces.

  • OctaneBoy

    Noticing that all this celebrity candidate fuss somehow omits the current president.

    When the Obama campaign picked up the entire 2008 DNC convention in Denver and moved it to an outdoor football stadium, he became a celebrity as well. Not in the Ventura/Trump model, but an idol to millions nonetheless.

    You cite infatuation, Bob; how about David Brooks, in the New York Times, being enthralled with Obama’s pants?

  • Bob Collins

    No doubt, Obama is a celebrity, but from my perspective not a celebrity candidate per se.

    Perot – Business tycoon

    Trump – Businessman and TV host

    Ventura – Wrestler and radio host.

    Obama – Politician

  • JackU

    Bob,

    Ventura – Wrestler and radio host.

    You left out Ventura’s time as mayor of Brooklyn Park. Which puts him in the company of the former Governor of Alaska in going from small town mayor to Governor with no stops in between. To Jesse’s credit he did stick it out even after the press had become nothing but a “pack of jackals”. The same cannot be said for Mrs. Palin.

  • Jim Shapiro

    Bob -

    You forgot these guys in your list:

    Reagan: b actor + governor = cognitively challenged, figurehead president

    George Jr: son of president + failed oil man + governor = cognitively challenged, figurehead president

  • Bob Collins

    No, i didn’t. The post is about celebrity candidates with no chance of winning. They burn bright, usually self destruct, and burn out quickly.

    it’s not about the usual stuff about the usual presidents.

  • Jim Shapiro

    Dear Bob -

    When you stress the factors “knowing they can’t win/no chance of winning”, it becomes a game of speculative hindsight.

    Is it beyond the realm of possibility that these individuals, complete with their impressive egos, believe/d that they COULD win?

    I was trying to show counter examples of people who began as celebrities (eg name recognition outside of personal participation in politics) who DID win.