Does Mark Halperin Have What It Takes to Be a Pundit?

An op-ed piece in Sunday's New York Times by former ABC political director Mark Halperin has stunned the punditocracy. Many are wondering what the strategy could possibly be behind Halperin's writing a piece that claims that presidential campaigns should no longer be covered like a horse race, which is how he and other pundits have been covering them for the last 20 years. Claiming that he was overly influenced by Richard Ben Cramer's 1992 book What It Takes (which I have not actually read), Halperin wrote, "For most of my time covering presidential elections, I shared the view that there was a direct correlation between the skills needed to be a great candidate and a great president. But now I think I was wrong." Some pundits are saying privately that Halperin's admission that practically everything he has said and done for the last 20 years has been a colossal error echoes what many are thinking, while others question his motives and wonder whether he really has what it takes to be a pundit. It remains to be seen whether Halperin's piece is a bold move that will cause him to break out from the ranks of other pundits or whether it is a career-ending gaffe.

Halperin says he came to this realization after examining the last two presidencies, which after 15 years of careful consideration he now characterizes as equally "failed." "Being all things to all people worked wonderfully well for Bill Clinton the candidate, but when his presidency ran into trouble, this trait was disastrous," he says, elegantly reducing Clinton's personality to an evocative pop psychology catchphrase, while he claims that George Bush's "assuredness became stubbornness" and his "once-appealing life outside of government and public affairs became a far-less appealing lack of experience," though he doesn't specify when this transformation supposedly took place. Some immediately criticized Halperin for lumping together two presidencies that are so different. Indeed, how can you compare a President who didn't even fight one war with one who fought two or one who had an easy eight years of economic prosperity with one who has presided over a few little economic hiccups so skillfully? How can he possibly compare a President like Clinton who was so unpopular among the chatterati with one who is so beloved? Has Halperin lost his touch at reflexively making strained yet seemingly apt comparisons that are supposed to illustrate his even-handedness and lack of partisanship?

There was a time when Mark Halperin was the golden boy of the chattering classes. As the writer of ABC's The Note he was celebrated for his uncanny ability to repeat what everyone else in Washington was saying in a way that confirmed it to be true. The Note fused the cynical, inside baseball journalism of reporters like Theodore White with the in-depth analysis and psychological insight of celebrity journalism. It was like Wonkette for people who thought Wonkette was too wonkish. DC's talking heads could read The Note every morning and feel reassured that they could safely repeat on TV what they had said at a cocktail party when they were falling-down drunk the night before. The Note showed them, for example, that Terry Schiavo really was a boon for the Republicans even if every poll mistakenly showed otherwise and then they could safely reiterate that in their columns and on TV. It was a fresh, edgy take on the conventional wisdom that didn't require reporters to learn too much about boring and difficult issues and left more time for eating, drinking and schmoozing. When Halperin finally left The Note to strike out on his own the sky seemed to be the limit.

Halperin's casual masculinity and dashing good looks made him the kind of alpha male pundit you would like to have a beer with. But some of his friends, who are unwilling to speak on the record, see another side to him that leaves them troubled. They believe Halperin's career can be summed up as an epoch Oedipal struggle with his father, Mort Halperin, who once worked for Nixon but eventually ended up on Nixon's Enemies List. Mark Halperin seems to be consciously avoiding the mistakes of his father, making sure he doesn't end up on anyone's enemies list no matter what power brokers he has to suck up to, even if it means begging Hugh Hewitt to be his friend. Maureen Dowd could probably write a whole book reducing Halperin's life to an Oedipal struggle and exploring all the permutations of that simple psychological observation for pages and pages and pages.

Although we don't know a lot about how Halperin stands on the issues (and, frankly, the prospect of listening to him go on about social security or health care, which he probably doesn't know much about anyway, has us bored to tears), we do know something about his hair. His hair is youthful, thick and dark like the helmet of a warrior, saved from being too perfect by a whispy lock that falls gently on the center of his forehead, hinting that behind his remarkable poise and control beats the heart of a man who occasionally takes risks but is not reckless. In short, it is a man's hair. Considering how great and manly his hair is, it is surprising that Halperin has not done as well as a freelance pundit as many thought he would. Perhaps his New York Times op-ed is a Hail Mary pass on fourth down or a sacrifice bunt with bases loaded or some equally evocative sports metaphor from soccer, a game that as a red-blooded American I know nothing about, which just makes me seem even more like one of the boys.

Whatever the real reason behind Halperin's mea culpa, it is sure to be a hot topic of conversation inside the Beltway. Many pundits will question Halperin's fitness to be a pundit and will see this as an opportunity to take him out. Joe Klein will no doubt issue an even more damning apology for all of the mistakes he has made, arguing that they are even worse than Halperin's. Maureen Dowd will cattily question Halperin's masculinity. David Broder will take a vacation in Beaver Island, Michigan, and find a voter who will tell him that he disagrees with Halperin and that voters actually appreciate journalists' writing about the campaign as a horse race. Chris Matthews will start yelling something about Halperin so loudly that I will have to turn down the television and miss what he is saying. William Kristol will say that Halperin's piece just makes it that much more imperative that we invade Iran as soon as possible. Whatever the impact of Halperin's piece, it is sure to give them all something talk about that is a lot more interesting than whatever the candidates actually plan to do as President.

Share This Post



Technorati Tags: Jon Swift, Mark Halperin, David Broder, ABC, Maureen Dowd, The Note, Bush, Bill Clinton, Politics