THE 2020 SUBTEXT: POLICY v. PROCESS

WHAT QUESTIONS SHOULD REPORTERS ASK AND WHAT MATTERS SHOULD CANDIDATES DISCUSS?

What’s more important: a candidate’s policy views or the election process?  On the policy side, candidates discuss, and the media ask about, issues like health care and immigration. On what we call the process side lie non-policy matters like a candidate’s personal life, campaign strategy, the state of the polls, and controversies stirred up in the media and by other candidates. That dichotomy has already shown up in the fledgling 2020 campaign.  

 
Elizabeth Warren and Rachel Maddow

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren announced on January 2 formation of a presidential exploratory committee, a clear indication she’s seeking the presidency. Warren sat down the next day with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow for her first major campaign interview.

Maddow asked no process questions, focusing on foreign policy and Warren’s extensive involvement in consumer protection issues. Maddow didn’t ask Warren about her age (she’s 69), her standing in the candidate pecking order, or the controversy over the DNA test Warren took last fall aimed at determining whether she has Native American ancestry, a test about which a Native American leader expressed dismay. What Maddow asked and didn’t ask provoked an intense discussion among the three of us on the policy/process dichotomy.

Woodson’s point

Ironically, or perhaps prophetically, the same day Warren appeared on Maddow’s show, Chris Hayes, another MSNBC host whose program precedes Maddow’s, warned the media it should avoid pursuing every sensational subject injected into the 2020 campaign. Hayes claimed the media too often did that in 2016 and expressed his concern about that diverting the public’s attention from serious policy discussion.

I agree with Hayes and think the issue of Warren’s ancestry

represents a good example of a process question the media should avoid. I don’t see a need for media exploration of whether Warren has Native American ancestry any more than I see the media having a responsibility for inquiring into whether Donald Trump’s hair is real or its true color is silver or blonde. I care much more about what’s in Warren’s head than what’s in her blood, just as I am more concerned about what’s in Trump’s head than I am about the color of what covers it.

What matters in the 2020 campaign includes how candidates view war and peace, foreign policy, NATO, infrastructure, immigration, preservation of democracy and the rule of law, and trade policy. If reporters insist on asking process questions, candidates should respectfully answer, but spend as little time on them as possible. Serious reporters should leave those questions for the tabloids. 

Rob's View

As a former broadcast journalist, political operative, and communication scholar, this issue troubles me. I get Woodson’s point about focusing on what’s important and I regard his issues list as a workable, useful agenda for the 2020 candidates. Voters need detailed information about where candidates stand on issues and what issues they understand and don’t understand. The current President displayed his ignorance of so much in 2016, tipping off the incompetence we now see. Too many voters disregarded Trump’s display of ignorance and the country suffers. Reporters and the public, therefore, must ask policy questions because the answers potentially reveal a candidate’s capacity for governing. 

I remain convinced, however, process questions matter. In Warren’s case, I see her less-than-deft handling of the

DNA test as significant. First, one can question her judgment in even taking the test since she apparently was baited into it by Trump’s name calling (the “Pocahontas” business). Second, that she didn’t anticipate negative reaction from some Native Americans could indicate a lack of foresight or sloppy staff work or both. Neither is irrelevant to her candidacy. Getting a total picture of an office seeker means making both kinds of inquiries.

Henry thinks

Although I’m not sure I buy into the policy/process dichotomy, I agree with Rob that Maddow should have asked

Warren about the DNA test matter. Although process requires a series of actions, those actions usually depend on policy positions. Policy development entails a course of action and the implementation of policy requires pre-formulation of complete policy positions, accompanied by process decisions. Policy and process intertwine in unusual and unpredictable ways, so I agree with the result Rob reaches on what Maddow should have asked Warren, though I don’t articulate my view the same way.

In Warren’s handling of the DNA test issue, the separation of process and policy become difficult. Her heritage assertion begs for explanation of how her recognition of that heritage may inform her positions on the treatment of Native Americans and what policy stances Americans and the American government should take on issues related to Native Americans. Her answers could lead us to numerous other policy issues and conclusions, especially given the atmosphere created by the current President.

Each of us brings to any endeavor the sum total of what we are. Our experiences and our understanding of who we are necessarily inform our policy stances.

What’s your view on this question?