The Al Gore problem

The New Republic’s Jonathan Chait links to Dana Milbank announcing that Mitt Romney has an “Al Gore Problem”—he seems phony even when he’s sincere. The evidence? At a campus Republican event “he assumed a professorial air by delivering a 25-page PowerPoint presentation in an amphitheater lecture hall … his very appearance – a suit worn without a necktie – shouted equivocation. His hair was so slick that only a few strands defied the product.” Oh, and the university actually announced it was not sponsoring the event, so aha!
Yes, what could be more weaselly than someone wearing a suit but no necktie. And why would a university state that it’s not sponsoring a presentation—I mean other than the fact it wasn’t sponsoring it, and probably didn’t want to be tagged as taking a political stance it wasn’t taking.
As Chait points out, the real “Al Gore problem is what happens when the media forms an impression of your character and decides to cram every irrelevant detail of your appearance and behavior into that frame, regardless of whether or not it means anything. Thus Romney’s hair and lack of tie are now evidence of a character flaw.”
This problem goes way back before Gore, of course. In a column a couple of years back, David Broder admits that back in the seventies, journalist Lou Cannon convinced Broder you should size up a politician, then play up an incident that highlights what you think his character is. Thus Broder, having seen Democrat Edmund Muskie lose his temper over a card game during Muskie’s run for the 1976 nomination, sized him up as too emotional to be a good president. When Muskie cried over some attacks on his wife (at least Broder thought he was crying; in hindsight, he admits it might have been, as Muskie claimed, snow melting), Broder and other journalists did indeed play it up big and Muskie dropped out of the race.
It sounds logical—get the facts about someone, then find a way to prove what they’re like —but in practice, once the Washington Press Corps fixes someone’s character in their heads, everything they do is taken as proof. John Kerry orders green tea in a Midwestern restaurant: A-ha, proof he’s an out of touch elitist! W. chops up brush on his farm: A-ha, proof of how ruggedly manly an American protector he is! Hilary Clinton says she loved The Wizard of Oz and Casablanca (as a kid and as a college student respectively): A-ha, proof that she’s a totally conniving manipulator (“obviously” she picked them because she knew millions of Americans would go Hey, me too!)!
Conversely, the press regards John McCain as the avatar of honor so when he lies about his position on South Carolina flying the Confederate flag, a-ha, that proves how honorable he is! (don’t ask).
The press shows no signs of stopping. After all, it’s gossipy, easy (you don’t really need hard facts or evidence for this kind of analysis) and more fun than policy analysis. Today the Daily Howler (which has done invaluable work since 1999 highlighting how Gore got slimed) points out that like John Edwards’ high-priced haircuts, Gingrich’s habit of buying generous amounts of jewelry at Tiffany’s is being held up as proof he’s some sort of hypocrite for proposing federal budget cuts. The NYT’s Sheryl Gay Stolberg speculates that “some voters out in the rest of America” might be offended, though she doesn’t quote any voters, pols or y’know, facts.
Stolberg says this is all Very Important because “the Tiffany story is sticking to Mr. Gingrich, helping to define—or perhaps redefine—him.” As if it were sticking (if it is sticking anywhere but in the press corps) by some natural force of public interest, rather than say, the press chattering about it.
I loathe Gingrich, but even he doesn’t deserve to have an Al Gore problem.