It's The Pakistan, Stupid?

Cable news pundits began reporting on the 2008 election in 2006 because covering campaigns and horse-races is much easier than any actual substantive journalism (look there, a new poll!). Subsequently, they are always looking to the latest news events from around the country and world not in terms of the issue at hand itself... but how it will affect the campaigns (better do some more polls).

So, of course, all the news pundits were ghoulishly tripping over themselves on Thursday to decide what the Bhutto assassination meant in Iowa (the news had barely broken as MSNBC's Joe Scarborough declared victory for Giuliani and Clinton) and the candidates followed in kind.

Besides the ridiculousness of this in general (how I long for Stewart and Colbert right now), I am scratching my head at the notion that the events in Pakistan are somehow going to drive primary voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, or elsewhere. Is this something the average citizen has more than a passing concern about? I know I am concerned about it, but I am a political junkie... a tiny percentage of Americans, even among voters.

To the extent that it brings 'national security' back into the debate, I doubt it scares/concerns voters so much as it reminds them of what a joke and waste of the resources the 'war on terror' (as currently defined) has been. That doesn't seem to help any of the candidates per se, it just further frustrates an already frustrated electorate. And then they go to work and deal with their own problems.

Glenn Greenwald echoes my thoughts in an update to a piece on media stupidity-

"Pundits with nothing to do typically claim that every news event will 'transform' elections (in October of last year, North Korea announced it had tested a nuclear weapon, and -- that day -- people like Dick Morris breathlessly claimed that this changed everything, that it would dominate the midterm elections, that the outcome would be determined by who reacted best to the 'North Korea crisis.' Like most stories do, that 'crisis' disappeared from the news cycle within 24 hours and I'd be surprised if a single vote was changed by it. Instantaneous analysis often engenders hysteria of this type).

Contrary to the prevailing views of our political and media elite -- virtually all of whom seem eager to debate how we should best resolve Pakistan's problems: demand elections? get rid of Musharraf? find a replacement for Bhutto? -- that country isn't our protectorate or our colony and I doubt that the average American voter wants candidates to prove that they can best manage Pakistan's internal political mess. We have substantial messes of our own and I suspect voters are more interested in how candidates will manage those."

Is Greenwald right? Just what does concern voters right now? Well, the AP found-

Voters began to worry more about their pocketbooks over the last month — even more than about the war in Iraq.

More than half the voters in an ongoing survey for The Associated Press and Yahoo! News now say the economy and health care are extremely important to them personally. They fear they will face unexpected medical expenses, their homes will lose value or mortgage and credit card payments will overwhelm them...

...The impact of Bhutto's assassination on public opinion depends on whether Americans perceive her death as an added threat to the United States... All in all, though, voters appear to be weighing other issues at least as heavily as the country heads into the first voting of the presidential election.

I think that the article underplays the importance of the war in Iraq to people (just because it no longer dominates headlines hardly means it's diminished in importance and concern), but it is clear right now economic uncertainty is people's primary concern. This is a key difference from 2004, when that giant Jenga pile that was Bush's 'good' economy had yet to see its pieces slowly pulled away.

I do believe that what is happening in Pakistan (and in Asia in general, and in the Middle East) is of importance to us. And I would love to see some real, substantive coverage of these issues in the press... without trying to tie everything to the campaign. Due to ratings pressure, the cable news attitude has always been 'Leave that shit to PBS, we've got breaking news to cover!", and so instead we get silly coverage and punditry purporting to speak for what people believe. I am optimistic enough, though, to believe most people are smarter than cable news gives them credit for.

[UPDATE: Greg Saunders makes a compelling argument on why this should be political.]