Politics

A Note To The Haters

Matt K. Lewis Senior Contributor
Font Size:

In my job, I wear a couple of different hats, and this is inconvenient in a world where you are expected to take sides and defend your “team” regardless of merit. My approach to covering politics, however, draws a fine distinction between analysis and activism.

Everybody has a viewpoint, of course, so honest horse race analysis is something we ostensibly want—but not really. Case in point: If someone asks me if Donald Trump’s speech yesterday will help him politically, I might note that it was a competent speech that demonstrated a newfound ability to stay on script in the face of protesters. Ask me what I think of his proposed economic policies, however, and my answer will likely be more critical.

Mildly praising the “process” aspect of Trump’s campaign (on a given day) will almost always be interpreted as an endorsement of Trump; it isn’t. Likewise, my frequent criticism of Trump has sometimes led people to accuse me of “supporting” Hillary Clinton; I don’t.

After crediting Trump for doing something well (such as staying on script), the predictable response will be something like this: “Congratulations! Trump did something that a third grader could do. How long will it last?” It’s fair to note that Trump has never been able to stick to a “pivot,” and I’ll concede the bar for him is very low. But there’s a reason for that. While I strongly expect Hillary Clinton to prevail in November, the fact remains that (1) she’s a bad candidate, (2) seventy percent of Americans feel like we’re going in the wrong direction, and (3) it’s hard for any political party to win three consecutive elections.

But the main point is that we shouldn’t confuse analysis with preference. To use the obligatory sports metaphor: I’m a Washington Redskins fan. But if Eli Manning throws four touchdowns, I’m allowed to say he had a good game. This doesn’t mean I’m rooting for the Giants. This is how I view political analysis. I have a rooting interest, sure, which is (amazingly) both anti-Trump and anti-Hillary Clinton.

I try not to let my personal tastes or philosophical inclinations cloud my analysis, which requires observing and commenting on what is, in many ways, tantamount to a game. This is (partly) what I get paid to do. This confuses some people, who seem to believe that if you’re a Redskins fan you should never concede that the Giants made a good play.

For those who want to know where I stand personally or philosophically, it’s not as if I have neglected to weigh in on the serious moral and political ramifications of this election cycle; I wrote an entire book called Too Dumb to Fail that takes on the populist and anti-intellectual forces that gave rise to Donald Trump. My negative opinion of Trump has been well documented. But this doesn’t mean I can’t fairly comment on the philosophically neutral act of giving a good speech, organizing a precinct, or (in the rare case Trump manages to do it) staying on message.

Matt K. Lewis