Election analysis rolled out in lecture

Author: Jaime Fuller

Rolling Stone magazine editor Eric Bates gave an opinionated address on the presidential election on Oct. 28 as part of the "Meet the Press" lecture series. Bates spent half-an-hour giving his perspective on the candidates, the campaigns and the mainstream media before relinquishing control of the conversation to the inquisitive audience.

Bates has been executive editor of Rolling Stone since February 2008 and recently conducted a one-on-one interview with Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama for the magazine. Previously, he worked as the magazine's political editor, and also has experience as an investigative editor at Mother Jones and as editor-in-chief of the political journal Southern Exposure.

When Scholar-in-Residence in English Sue Halpern, organizer of "Meet the Press," rose to the podium to introduce the journalist, she recalled the inaugural lecture of the "Meet the Press" series, which occurred exactly four years ago with the same speaker.

"A lot has happened in those four years," she said. "I thought it was only fitting that Eric come back and help sort it all out, and I'm hoping to make it a tradition."

She also gave the audience a disclaimer, noting that last time she remembered that Bates made an incorrect prediction that John Kerry would win the 2004 presidential election.

"Thanks for reminding me how much I suck," Bates responded as he took the podium.

Bates began the lecture by reiterating Halpern's point that much has changed since the last election.

"We tend to look at past elections to predict what is going to happen, but often times the rules have changed."

He argued that this is the reason that Senator Hillary Clinton was unsuccessful in the Democratic primaries, that "playing by the old rulebook" doesn't work when the old rules don't apply anymore.

Obama's success, on the other hand, he believes is a direct result of his ability to respond to the changes in the political climate.

"His path to the election is inspiring," Bates said. "It's a reminder to us that far more is possible than we could ever imagine. He saw that the conditions were such and the rules were changing so he could take advantage of the moment."

However, Bates doesn't take stock in those who cite the polls as an augury of an Obama victory next Tuesday.

"Obama could be 30 points ahead in the polls and we'd still be biting our nails," he said. Republicans never get like that … but [Democrats] always think something is going to go wrong."

The reason he doesn't trust the polls is because he believes that like the Clintons, the polls are still playing by the old rulebook. He cited the polls' reliance on landlines, their ignorance of new voters and the unknown impact of the Bradley effect as reasons why the public shouldn't get too comfortable with the current media narrative. Despite his distrust of the polls, he still is confident that Obama will be successful on Nov. 4.

"The Republicans really only have two things going for them this election: racism and the ability to rig the vote."

Bates believes despite the Republicans' dominance in politics over the past few decades, that this election is going to recreate the political landscape in the Democratic Party's favor in a way not seen since the era of the Great Depression. What is even more important, according to Bates, is that larger shifts are happening in the American electorate. Some he sees as positive and diversity enriching, such as the impending loss of majority status for whites and the increase of unmarried and alternative families in the populace. The shift he finds more worrisome is the increasing homogeneity of the electorate.

"The world is starting to look like the Internet," he said. "People are only grouping together with like minded people and they don't have any idea what the other group is like or about."

He then turned the discussion to the possible problems of an Obama presidency.

"There is eight years worth of pent-up Democratic energy where they didn't get jack done," he said. "Now [Democrats] are going to have their hand in the cookie jar, and Obama's going to have to manage this. The Democrats could easily blow it."

He also noted that Republicans should be glad that they might lose the majority in Congress, as it would "restore [them] to the job they were meant to do-the opposition"

"Republicans don't believe in government," he said. "They really suck at government, but they don't suck at being the opposition. They're really good at that."

At the end of the lecture, when the audience assumed the role of the press, many topics were discussed, including the nomination of Governor Sarah Palin, the potential for bipartisan action in an Obama administration and the role of David Axelrod in the Obama campaign. He ended with an analysis of journalistic responsibility in the political process, and the changing role of the mainstream media in an increasingly cacophonous arena of media outlets and opinions. His conclusion is that despite criticism that the media is biased, the media has "done a good job," and that fairness, not objectivity, should be the goal of journalism.

"The media plays a role in being combative, skeptical, funny and occasionally tasteless," he said. "The media puts things into perspective in a way candidates can't."

The "Meet the Press" lecture series is presented by the Middlebury College Institute on Working Journalism and is designed to bring distinguished journalists to offer their experience and opinion to the campus community. The event was co-sponsored by Brainerd Commons and the Department of English and American Literatures.