Political Reflections: An Interview with Paul Begala
Below is an interview that I recently did with Paul Begala. Paul was a rising political star when I first met him in
Des Moines in early 1988 on the Gephardt for President campaign. Later that year, we worked together on the Lautenberg for Senate race in New Jersey. That contest was “nasty, brutish and short.” But we won. I was hoping to meet up with Paul for a Lautenberg for Senate reunion in Washington, DC in early January. Sadly, it was the day after my CEO Garry Betty passed away so I was unable to attend.
I decided to use the reunion as an opportunity to get Paul’s take on how political communications has changed over the years. As his custom, Paul quickly responded and graciously agreed to share his insight.
So much has changed since those frigid days in Iowa when we were fighting the good fight. I was 25 then – new to politics and PR. I wasn’t exactly sure what spinning was, but quickly got caught up in the excitement of a political campaign. This week, as the list of presidential candidates grows and the President issues his State of the Union address, I can’t help but get a little nostalgic for a time in my life now far behind me.
Dan Greenfield: Back when you started were communications and technology so closely bound together as they are today or was technology just a means to an end?
Paul Begala: When I started, in 1983, the state of the art for me was an IBM correcting Selectric typewriter. Liquid Paper was new, and cutting edge meant taking a pair of scissors and snipping different paragraphs together. Faxes were rare and the quickest way to get information from here to there (absent the phone) was FedEx. [James] Carville and I started out running a US Senate race in Texas. The communications technology we used in 1984 was not significantly different from that which LBJ had used in 1964: fly around the state on a small plane (Johnson preferred a helicopter), hold a press event, and have it covered by TV, radio and print. But in the 20+ years since then, the whole world has changed.
Greenfield: What was the really cool technology back in 1988?
Begala: By 1988 faxes were in fairly common usage. Of course, they used waxy, thermal paper that curled up. It was almost like reading a scroll.
Greenfield: How has the news cycle changed in 20 years and how does it impact the way you work?
Begala: The news cycle is inestimably faster. We speak of 24-hour news cycles today. Every story can be changed, answered, defended, attacked, critiqued -- and all in real time. There is no more waiting for the nightly news at 6:30 or rushing to the loading dock at dawn to get the bulldog edition of the paper. Everything is online first -- and our ability to respond rapidly is greatly increased.
Greenfield: The 1988 Lautenberg race gained a reputation as being particularly nasty. Does the Internet make things nastier today (e.g. bloggers not journalists breaking news, opinions and emotions over facts and reason)?
Begala: The internet has made news -- and especially campaign coverage -- much, much better. In the bad old days, publishers, who are generally conservative -- they voted for Bush over Gore by a 3 to 1 margin -- had the last word. Now, thanks to the Internet, we the people can have unlimited words after the fat-cats are through with their endorsements. Has the internet coarsened the discourse? I don't know - hell, I hosted "Crossfire" for years. I think the American people are tough. And what is said about George W. Bush these days is nothing compared to what was said about Thomas Jefferson. So I don't join the chorus of hand-wringers and whiners who complain about the internet. It is a democratic phenomenon (with a small "d") -- so it reflects all of us: the good, the bad and the ugly. I just believe that most of us are basically good.
Greenfield: Will politicians creating avatars and hosting meetings in Second Life ever replace good old fashion pressing the flesh?
Begala: Replace? No. Augment, yes. Only tiny fraction of Americans will ever meet a presidential candidate in person, so smart politicians are always looking for ways to get close to more people. Technology allows that better than ever before.
Greenfield: Has the Internet made your job easier or harder?
Begala: Inestimably easier. Computer-assisted research -- principally Google -- has made my work much easier. I can fact-check anything in less than one second. If I'm debating Rev. Jerry Falwell about the separation of church and state, I can find Jefferson's letter to the Danbury, CT Baptists in a nanosecond. Rather than paraphrasing it from hazy memory, or spending half the day going down the library and looking it up in a reference book, I can quote Jefferson directly and accurately when he called for a wall between church and state. It's right there, on the Library of Congress's website...In fact, that statistic I cited above about publishers voting 3 to 1 for Bush over Gore in 2000? I got that from Editor & Publisher online by searching with Google.
Greenfield: Does the Internet redefine what it takes to be a successful candidate?
Begala: Somewhat, but not much. We still want someone who is strong and brave and wise and kind. Someone who cares about people like us, who has an open mind and a loving heart. Lincoln would excel today just as he did in the 19th Century.
Greenfield: How much of a political campaign should be waged with new media vs mainstream media?
Begala: A lot. Bloggers on both the left and right bedevil corporate media, and I couldn't be happier about it (even though, as a mainstream media pundit at CNN, I get my share of grief from both the left and the right). They keep us honest. You have to have a thick skin, but why should media be immune from the same sort of scrutiny we give politicians?
Greenfield: How important are sites like YouTube in getting out the message? Does it change the ad strategy for political consultants?
Begala: YouTube is enormously important because it is free, credible and egalitarian. The old, canned b.s. from media consultants -- the candidate and his lovely wife Louise sitting on the front porch swing, (under perfect lighting and with two pounds of makeup) just won't work anymore. YouTube compels authenticity; its viewers have zero tolerance for bullshit. (As an aside, I once saw an interview in which the founder of YouTube said he got the idea for it after seeing how many people watched Jon Stewart's little hissy-fit on Crossfire online a few years ago. I am proud to have been the inspiration -- albeit unwittingly -- of such a terrific website.)
Greenfield: If 2004 was all about the blog, what will 2008 be about?
Begala: If I knew that, I'd be creating it right now.
Greenfield: Thanks Paul
--------------
No question, politics have changed since those days in 1988. Just as video altered the debate, so has the Internet impacted political discourse. As Paul points out, bloggers and citizen journalists have shifted the balance of power. We used to complain that soundbites were getting shorter and shorter -- giving us abbreviated remarks with little context. An editor or producer decided what was the most important part of a candidate's speech. Technology has freed us from the restrictions of a thirty minute broadcast. Now those wanting more information can go to political websites and see speeches and events in their entirety. Position papers can be accessed in a nanosecond. Ironically the speed of the Internet is giving us more time to digest and reflect. In the age of the Internet, the race may not be to the swiftest but it certainly gives an edge to the most technologically adept.
Let me get back to you.
Technorati Tags: Paul Begala; Senator Frank Lautenberg; James Carville; political campaigns; campaigns;
I decided to use the reunion as an opportunity to get Paul’s take on how political communications has changed over the years. As his custom, Paul quickly responded and graciously agreed to share his insight.
So much has changed since those frigid days in Iowa when we were fighting the good fight. I was 25 then – new to politics and PR. I wasn’t exactly sure what spinning was, but quickly got caught up in the excitement of a political campaign. This week, as the list of presidential candidates grows and the President issues his State of the Union address, I can’t help but get a little nostalgic for a time in my life now far behind me.
Dan Greenfield: Back when you started were communications and technology so closely bound together as they are today or was technology just a means to an end?
Paul Begala: When I started, in 1983, the state of the art for me was an IBM correcting Selectric typewriter. Liquid Paper was new, and cutting edge meant taking a pair of scissors and snipping different paragraphs together. Faxes were rare and the quickest way to get information from here to there (absent the phone) was FedEx. [James] Carville and I started out running a US Senate race in Texas. The communications technology we used in 1984 was not significantly different from that which LBJ had used in 1964: fly around the state on a small plane (Johnson preferred a helicopter), hold a press event, and have it covered by TV, radio and print. But in the 20+ years since then, the whole world has changed.
Greenfield: What was the really cool technology back in 1988?
Begala: By 1988 faxes were in fairly common usage. Of course, they used waxy, thermal paper that curled up. It was almost like reading a scroll.
Greenfield: How has the news cycle changed in 20 years and how does it impact the way you work?
Begala: The news cycle is inestimably faster. We speak of 24-hour news cycles today. Every story can be changed, answered, defended, attacked, critiqued -- and all in real time. There is no more waiting for the nightly news at 6:30 or rushing to the loading dock at dawn to get the bulldog edition of the paper. Everything is online first -- and our ability to respond rapidly is greatly increased.
Greenfield: The 1988 Lautenberg race gained a reputation as being particularly nasty. Does the Internet make things nastier today (e.g. bloggers not journalists breaking news, opinions and emotions over facts and reason)?
Begala: The internet has made news -- and especially campaign coverage -- much, much better. In the bad old days, publishers, who are generally conservative -- they voted for Bush over Gore by a 3 to 1 margin -- had the last word. Now, thanks to the Internet, we the people can have unlimited words after the fat-cats are through with their endorsements. Has the internet coarsened the discourse? I don't know - hell, I hosted "Crossfire" for years. I think the American people are tough. And what is said about George W. Bush these days is nothing compared to what was said about Thomas Jefferson. So I don't join the chorus of hand-wringers and whiners who complain about the internet. It is a democratic phenomenon (with a small "d") -- so it reflects all of us: the good, the bad and the ugly. I just believe that most of us are basically good.
Greenfield: Will politicians creating avatars and hosting meetings in Second Life ever replace good old fashion pressing the flesh?
Begala: Replace? No. Augment, yes. Only tiny fraction of Americans will ever meet a presidential candidate in person, so smart politicians are always looking for ways to get close to more people. Technology allows that better than ever before.
Greenfield: Has the Internet made your job easier or harder?
Begala: Inestimably easier. Computer-assisted research -- principally Google -- has made my work much easier. I can fact-check anything in less than one second. If I'm debating Rev. Jerry Falwell about the separation of church and state, I can find Jefferson's letter to the Danbury, CT Baptists in a nanosecond. Rather than paraphrasing it from hazy memory, or spending half the day going down the library and looking it up in a reference book, I can quote Jefferson directly and accurately when he called for a wall between church and state. It's right there, on the Library of Congress's website...In fact, that statistic I cited above about publishers voting 3 to 1 for Bush over Gore in 2000? I got that from Editor & Publisher online by searching with Google.
Greenfield: Does the Internet redefine what it takes to be a successful candidate?
Begala: Somewhat, but not much. We still want someone who is strong and brave and wise and kind. Someone who cares about people like us, who has an open mind and a loving heart. Lincoln would excel today just as he did in the 19th Century.
Greenfield: How much of a political campaign should be waged with new media vs mainstream media?
Begala: A lot. Bloggers on both the left and right bedevil corporate media, and I couldn't be happier about it (even though, as a mainstream media pundit at CNN, I get my share of grief from both the left and the right). They keep us honest. You have to have a thick skin, but why should media be immune from the same sort of scrutiny we give politicians?
Greenfield: How important are sites like YouTube in getting out the message? Does it change the ad strategy for political consultants?
Begala: YouTube is enormously important because it is free, credible and egalitarian. The old, canned b.s. from media consultants -- the candidate and his lovely wife Louise sitting on the front porch swing, (under perfect lighting and with two pounds of makeup) just won't work anymore. YouTube compels authenticity; its viewers have zero tolerance for bullshit. (As an aside, I once saw an interview in which the founder of YouTube said he got the idea for it after seeing how many people watched Jon Stewart's little hissy-fit on Crossfire online a few years ago. I am proud to have been the inspiration -- albeit unwittingly -- of such a terrific website.)
Greenfield: If 2004 was all about the blog, what will 2008 be about?
Begala: If I knew that, I'd be creating it right now.
Greenfield: Thanks Paul
--------------
No question, politics have changed since those days in 1988. Just as video altered the debate, so has the Internet impacted political discourse. As Paul points out, bloggers and citizen journalists have shifted the balance of power. We used to complain that soundbites were getting shorter and shorter -- giving us abbreviated remarks with little context. An editor or producer decided what was the most important part of a candidate's speech. Technology has freed us from the restrictions of a thirty minute broadcast. Now those wanting more information can go to political websites and see speeches and events in their entirety. Position papers can be accessed in a nanosecond. Ironically the speed of the Internet is giving us more time to digest and reflect. In the age of the Internet, the race may not be to the swiftest but it certainly gives an edge to the most technologically adept.
Let me get back to you.
Technorati Tags: Paul Begala; Senator Frank Lautenberg; James Carville; political campaigns; campaigns;
www.backinussr.com
(Comment this)