Shadi Hamid thinks the Dems need one.

Ezra Klein thinks they don’t—they already have one:

Globalization and its attendant economic forces have destabilized the working class and the corporate welfare state they relied on, so the government should step into the breach and guarantee what employers no longer can.

Welp, back in the day, that was known as socialism. Today, it’s known as statism or, somewhat less politely, the nanny state. And somehow I just don’t think it will do as a successful pitch—it’s more like a rallying cry for Republicans to do what they do best: build a massive wall of resistance against “tax and spend” Dems and then bury them.

A more somewhat more contemplative discussion of the subject appears in the comments to Hamid’s post. I particularly liked this one by SteveB, who gets the concept of a narrative—i.e., a simple story (not unlike a fairy tale) that relies on popular prejudices (for example: the past was better) and that pits the good guys on your side against the bad guys on the other:

[All] narratives require a narrative arc, and the easiest way to get that arc is to build on the “virtuous past, corrupt present” theme. Thus “Government was efficient until Bush and his cronies screwed it up”, or “The poor were thrifty and virtuous until welfare made them lazy and dangerous.” This sort of narrative naturally comes easier to a conservative who wants to turn back the clock than to a progressive who wants, you know, progress.

But there are ways to turn this theme to a progressive purpose. For example, here’s a narrative promoting national health care:

“Once, health care was about helping people, and not about getting rich. Sure, the local doctor was better off than most, but not outrageously so, and most hospitals were local and non-profit. The for-profit hospital chains, the HMO’s, and the pharmaceutical companies changed all that, and now we pay considerably more per-person that other countries do, and get less for it. We need to get back to the idea that our health care system should be about providing care to anyone who needs it, and get greed out of the system.”

That’s good storytelling—and, yes, the Dems need it. But not more than they need a credible candidate who’s got the “vision thing” and can deploy it consistently, as Bill Clinton did. Obama’s got it (we worship an awesome God in the purple states), but he can’t get traction for it. Edwards (two Americas) is trying. Hillary has nothing except the “responsibility gene” (and the entire Democratic establishment backing her).

Unfortunately for the Dems, Rudy is the one to beat. Folks trying desperately to poke holes in his Mr. 9/11 image are barking up the wrong tree. Rudy’s narrative is powerful because he has spent a lifetime building it, and believing in it. He was, let’s not forget, a Kennedy Democrat once upon a time. That will be a fearsome weapon to wield against his Democratic opponent, once he gets the nod from his party (which I believe he will, and which I predicted a year ago that he would).

Democratic storytellers, unite! You’ve got your work cut out for you.

Who said this about Michael Vick?

Commenters on my favorite channel (ESPN) keep saying that Michael Vick may never play football again. Why? Because he committed heinous acts? It sure looks like he is going to be punished for them, and that he will apologize. I’m sick of criminalizing black youth. Once he’s out, Vick should be allowed to play again. That’s America. We believe in renewal, redemption, and paying your price. Also talent. Vick is a gifted athlete. Let’s see him back on the field, after he does time. [e.a.]

That’s Philip Weiss, who I promised not long ago to mock mercilessly.

How’m I doin’?

I hope Rachel Sklar isn’t saying that America’s network news anchors—you know: the people who bring us word about war, mudslides, floods, earthquakes, terrorist attacks, government incompetence, corporate greed, national security, housing-bubble bursts, and so forth—can improve their credibility with a skeptical public as a source of information by playing along with one comedian’s provocations.

But I’m afraid she is:

Comedians (and, specifically, comedic interviewers like Stephen Colbert) create situations that people have to react to. It’s a test: If you play along you’re funny and cool, and if you don’t your’e stiff and boring. So how people like Brian Williams and Katie Couric and Bill O’Reilly react to him are an indication of what they are really like - . In the case of news anchors, that’s about as far from “Voice of God” as you can get - their interactions with Colbert take place outside of their tightly-scripted and minutely-produced 22 minutes of news.
…

It’s not part of the traditional job description of the network news anchor to either make jokes or take jokes - but because Colbert is bringing this kind of comedy into the world of news, suddenly handling this well speaks to character, which is pretty important when deciding who you want to spend half an hour with every day - or who you instinctively turn to in moments of national crisis.

Where to start? How about here:

[anchors']instinctive reactions are measures of their good humor and authenticity and humanity

Um, no. Anchors’ “instinctive reactions” are the finely honed on-air mannerisms of people who make their living in front of a camera. Some of them are naturally “authentic”; some of them are deliberately over-the-top. All of them are trained professionals, the product of speech lessons and wardrobe advisers and image makeovers.

We know nothing about them, much less their characters. Some of them are indeed very skillful at coming across as authentic. So what? Their very presence in the anchor chair gives them a huge advantage: they’re there, night after night, steady as she goes. The predictability of their appearance night after night gives them presence and authority—the Voice of God—beyond their personal tics, quirks, and “humanity.” Well … unless they’re this guy.

As for Colbert’s “bringing this kind of comedy into the world of news”—is that a good thing? Why should Charles Gibson, who’s at the top of his game and who took his news broadcast to the top of the heap with his deliberately old-fashioned amiable-but-also-stern-when-need-be manner, play along with Steven Colbert? To show Rachel Sklar that he’s got a sense of humor? I don’t think so.

Besides, is that what we want?—to muddy the waters between news and entertainment even more? Surely what ails journalism is not an absence of a sense of humor about itself.

In 1994, the cultural sociologist Joshua Gamson wrote about the allure of infotainment, and about the slippery slope of treating news as play. For some reason The American Prospect has it listed in the archives as having been published in 2002.

The popularity of infotainment is based on accepting the summons to treat information as play.

Play is best when consequences are small. This is the heart of the matter and the truly disturbing part. Only when people perceive public life as inconsequential, as not their own, do they readily accept the invitation to turn news into play. When the outcome matters, it is not so easy to switch gears and give up the need for significant and trustworthy information. Today, a shrunken sense of political efficacy makes possible the unsurprising conversion of news into infotainment. [e.a.]

I’ve got more to say, but it’ll have to wait. Meanwhile, you could read the whole thing.

Welcome, ETP readers! Have a look around. Especially for your benefit, I’ve corrected the spelling of Joshua Gamson’s name (see above). All other typos since February 2006 remain in place, as does our affection for ETP.

The Rolling Halberstam Tour is coming to a bookstore near you.

The command post is a set of Manhattan publishing offices, and the foot soldiers include Joan Didion, Seymour Hersh, Bob Woodward, Anna Quindlen, Alex Kotlowitz, Paul Hendrickson, Samantha Power and Bill Walton. They are going on David Halberstam’s book tour for him.

It’s going to be huuuuge:

An authorless national author tour “doesn’t seem to me to have been done before,” said Constance Sayre, a principal in the Manhattan publishing consulting firm Market Partners International. “What’s going to make it effective,” she added, “is the fact that his best friends are high-profile people, big names. You can also put them on local television and radio. It should create a wave of news because each person is going to say something different.”

It’s going to create a wave of news? Why not a tsunami of news? I mean this is so, so special. Who could possibly stay away?