No Comment — October 5, 2008, 11:55 am

The Ifill Factor

The recent debate at Washington University in Saint Louis between Senator Joe Biden and Governor Sarah Palin was the most watched vice presidential debate of all time. Polling and pundits seem to have settled on a consensus view, namely that the debate was a clear win for Senator Biden on points and persuasion. But Governor Palin gets an important consolation prize in that she outperformed the historically low expectations for her, expectations set by a series of gaffes and misfires in handling questions, particularly in interviews conducted by CBS News’s Katie Couric. None of that is particularly surprising. What really merits scrutiny in my mind are the tactics employed by the McCain campaign going into this debate. As Ken Silverstein noted in the days just before the debate, McCain operatives claimed to have made a “shocking discovery.” Ifill was about to publish a book entitled The Breakthrough that discusses Barack Obama, and a number of other black politicians, achieving national prominence in the last few years. (One of them, Alabama’s Artur Davis, has been profiled in this space recently.) The McCain campaigners claimed that this demonstrated bias, and suggested that Ifill should be dropped. In two appearances on Fox News, Senator McCain himself first dismissed these attacks on Ifill, and then, within the same newscycle, repeated them himself.

What was this all about? I’ve been interviewed by Ifill. She takes a scrupulous straight-down-the-middle approach and that’s her reputation. The McCain campaign knew about Ifill and her book from the end of the summer, and they certainly knew about it when they agreed on the recommendation of Ifill for the debate. Looking at how the debate proceeded, I think it is clear why they raised objections. They did not expect or even want Ifill to drop out. But they were counting on two things. First, the charges against Ifill would lead to her being extremely passive in her questioning of Palin and permissive in her moderating the debate. Second, the charge of bias against Ifill would enable Palin to simply skirt any questions she felt uncomfortable answering and go directly to a pre-rehearsed and nonresponsive talking point.

This strategy succeeded on both points. Ifill’s questioning and moderating was, as The Atlantic’s James Fallows remarked, “terrible.” She asked open-ended, utterly predictable questions which presented very little challenge to the candidates. But even more important to the McCain campaign’s strategy, Palin was able simply to ignore the questions and recite her talking points.

I think “recite” is the correct term. At several points while Biden was speaking, Palin’s eyes were fixed on some written material on the podium before her. Following these episodes, Palin’s comments were frequently off point—she seems to have been simply reciting prepared material, and hadn’t paid close enough attention to Ifill or Biden even to attempt to bridge them. Moreover, nearly half of all of Palin’s comments were nonresponsive or only tangentially responsive to the questions. Even at that, her talking material was so thin that she wound up repeating herself several times and using large helpings of verbal filler. As John Harris and Mike Allen put it in their analysis in The Politico:

On at least 10 occasions, Palin gave answers that were nonspecific, completely generic, pivoted away from the question at hand, or simply ignored it: on global warming, an Iraq exit strategy, Iran and Pakistan, Iranian diplomacy, Israel-Palestine (and a follow-up), the nuclear trigger, interventionism, Cheney’s vice presidency, and her own greatest weakness.

In an appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press a few minutes ago, Ifill made the obvious point in response to a question from Tom Brokaw: “Palin didn’t just ignore me. ‘Blew me off,’ I think, is the technical term.”

The disingenuous attacks on Ifill over her book were designed to enable Palin. She would ignore the questions put by the moderator and her supporters would understand that she was doing this as a gesture of protest over the moderator’s bias. This strategy reflects a very low assessment of Palin’s capabilities as a thinker and a speaker, and a low assessment of the intelligence of the audience following the debates. But it may have been cast in recognition of the perilous possibilities that the Couric interviews demonstrated. To that extent, at least, the strategy achieved its goal.

Share
Single Page

More from Scott Horton:

Conversation August 5, 2016, 12:08 pm

Lincoln’s Party

Sidney Blumenthal on the origins of the Republican Party, the fallout from Clinton’s emails, and his new biography of Abraham Lincoln

Conversation March 30, 2016, 3:44 pm

Burn Pits

Joseph Hickman discusses his new book, The Burn Pits, which tells the story of thousands of U.S. soldiers who, after returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, have developed rare cancers and respiratory diseases.

Context, No Comment August 28, 2015, 12:16 pm

Beltway Secrecy

In five easy lessons

Get access to 167 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

February 2018

The Bodies in The Forest

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Minds of Others

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Modern Despots

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Before the Deluge

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Notes to Self

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Within Reach

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
The Minds of Others·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Progress is impossible without change,” George Bernard Shaw wrote in 1944, “and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” But progress through persuasion has never seemed harder to achieve. Political segregation has made many Americans inaccessible, even unimaginable, to those on the other side of the partisan divide. On the rare occasions when we do come face-to-face, it is not clear what we could say to change each other’s minds or reach a worthwhile compromise. Psychological research has shown that humans often fail to process facts that conflict with our preexisting worldviews. The stakes are simply too high: our self-worth and identity are entangled with our beliefs — and with those who share them. The weakness of logic as a tool of persuasion, combined with the urgency of the political moment, can be paralyzing.

Yet we know that people do change their minds. We are constantly molded by our environment and our culture, by the events of the world, by the gossip we hear and the books we read. In the essays that follow, seven writers explore the ways that persuasion operates in our lives, from the intimate to the far-reaching. Some consider the ethics and mechanics of persuasion itself — in religion, politics, and foreign policy — and others turn their attention to the channels through which it acts, such as music, protest, and technology. How, they ask, can we persuade others to join our cause or see things the way we do? And when it comes to our own openness to change, how do we decide when to compromise and when to resist?

Illustration (detail) by Lincoln Agnew
Article
Within Reach·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

On a balmy day last spring, Connor Chase sat on a red couch in the waiting room of a medical clinic in Columbus, Ohio, and watched the traffic on the street. His bleached-blond hair fell into his eyes as he scrolled through his phone to distract himself. Waiting to see Mimi Rivard, a nurse practitioner, was making Chase nervous: it would be the first time he would tell a medical professional that he was transgender.

By the time he arrived at the Equitas Health clinic, Chase was eighteen, and had long since come to dread doctors and hospitals. As a child, he’d had asthma, migraines, two surgeries for a tumor that had caused deafness in one ear, and gangrene from an infected bug bite. Doctors had always assumed he was a girl. After puberty, Chase said, he avoided looking in the mirror because his chest and hips “didn’t feel like my body.” He liked it when strangers saw him as male, but his voice was high-pitched, so he rarely spoke in public. Then, when Chase was fourteen, he watched a video on YouTube in which a twentysomething trans man described taking testosterone to lower his voice and appear more masculine. Suddenly, Chase had an explanation for how he felt — and what he wanted.

Illustration by Taylor Callery
Article
Before the Deluge·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In the summer of 2016, when Congress installed a financial control board to address Puerto Rico’s crippling debt, I traveled to San Juan, the capital. The island owed some $120 billion, and Wall Street was demanding action. On the news, President Obama announced his appointments to the Junta de Supervisión y Administración Financiera. “The task ahead for Puerto Rico is not an easy one,” he said. “But I am confident Puerto Rico is up to the challenge of stabilizing the fiscal situation, restoring growth, and building a better future for all Puerto Ricans.” Among locals, however, the control board was widely viewed as a transparent effort to satisfy mainland creditors — just the latest tool of colonialist plundering that went back generations.

Photograph from Puerto Rico by Christopher Gregory
Article
Monumental Error·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In 1899, the art critic Layton Crippen complained in the New York Times that private donors and committees had been permitted to run amok, erecting all across the city a large number of “painfully ugly monuments.” The very worst statues had been dumped in Central Park. “The sculptures go as far toward spoiling the Park as it is possible to spoil it,” he wrote. Even worse, he lamented, no organization had “power of removal” to correct the damage that was being done.

Illustration by Steve Brodner
Post
CamperForce·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

After losing their savings in the stock market crash of 2008, seniors Barb and Chuck find seasonal employment at Amazon fulfillment centers.

Cost of a baby-stroller cleaning, with wheel detailing, at Tot Squad in New York City:

$119.99

Australian biologists trained monitor lizards not to eat cane toads.

Trump tweeted that he had created “jobs, jobs, jobs” since becoming president, and it was reported that Trump plans to bolster job creation by loosening regulations on the global sale of US-made artillery, warships, fighter jets, and drones.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Report — From the June 2013 issue

How to Make Your Own AR-15

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

By

"Gun owners have long been the hypochondriacs of American politics. Over the past twenty years, the gun-rights movement has won just about every battle it has fought; states have passed at least a hundred laws loosening gun restrictions since President Obama took office. Yet the National Rifle Association has continued to insist that government confiscation of privately owned firearms is nigh. The NRA’s alarmism helped maintain an active membership, but the strategy was risky: sooner or later, gun guys might have realized that they’d been had. Then came the shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, followed swiftly by the nightmare the NRA had been promising for decades: a dedicated push at every level of government for new gun laws. The gun-rights movement was now that most insufferable of species: a hypochondriac taken suddenly, seriously ill."

Subscribe Today