Everything old is new again...

Even though the book is more than 20 years old, and some of the essays almost 40 years old, this collection is chock-full of timely insights on U.S. presidential politics, the political press and the political fictions in which American voters, media, candidates and press all indulge: candidates “on the trail” (reporting as if we are seeing them in the wild, without admitting they are doing what they are doing only because the reporters are their to film it), the “swing voters” who must be courted, the power of the polls, national security, compassionate conservatism and “values”/“morality”/“character” campaigning. In an essay that stands apart from the rest, Didion also tries to figure out Newt Gingrich and really holds nothing back in reaching her conclusion (not much there). I had a harder time with the last two essays in the book, which I think depend more on having been tuned into politics at that time, to really feel something for the players on which Didion focuses.

The essay on New Gingrich was hilarious. And paired with the one on Bob Woodward I understand why people considered her a brilliant social commentator.

Didion is now being sniped at by the new, identitarian left as too snobbish. Well, she is. She is a conservative too, in the old, old sense of that word. But by gum, she is observant; she knows the linguistic rules of order; and she can generate a mystic sense of oracular terror out of a copyright note. She may loom the largest, both poetically and prophetically, of the mid century giants. (The last quarter here, a series of book reviews that snipe at Newt Gingrich, is dullish.)

Didion's central argument throughout the essays in Political Fictions is that our democratic elections (and the entire apparatus that surround them) are only nominally connected to the electorate itself. She argues only a small percentage of the population has become the deciding element in elections, this outcome is favorable to political elites (as the population they must appeal to becomes much more manageable), and this outcome was actively contributed to by the political media. She frequently comments on what she sees as the growing contempt of this political class for the electorate it is supposed to represent, and she frequently highlights the absurdity of politics as performance rather than politics as substance.

While I think the core of her argument - about the disconnect between the electorate and their representatives as a natural byproduct of the artificiality of a political apparatus that speaks only to itself in a perpetual feedback loop - is essential, I don't know how much this book offers beyond that (her argument is most succinctly delivered in the foreword). The essays are solely critical - almost the entire book is her just utterly roasting various journalists, organizations, and political figures - and are never, ever constructive. Not that it's Didion's job to be constructive, I just personally would much, much rather read about solutions right now rather than a 338-page indictment of the current system. And, as her goal is to utterly incinerate these organizations/individuals in service of her argument, I think the scope of the collection as a whole is ultimately quite a narrow picture of American politics from 1988-2000. Both of these issues are why this was ultimately a 3-star read for me.

As a final note, it was interesting what has changed over time and what had eerie similarities to the current political moment. Campaigning has become, by necessity, much less staged - in the era of Twitter you couldn't have an incredibly artificial baseball toss with a campaign aide, as she describes in "Insider Baseball." Both political journalism and constituent access to representatives have never been more open (thank you, Internet). The similarities - notably between the Dukakis/Jackson primary and the 2016 Democratic primary and her descriptions of candidates positioning themselves rhetorically as political outsiders - all recall the resurgent nature of American populism. I think this observation drives home Didion's key point; in a nation where the majority is consistently disillusioned with politics (or otherwise completely disengaged from politics), it seems natural the populist candidates have a special resonance.

Ultimately, I would really only recommend this book to someone with a staunch interest in American politics (and, even then, I think any reader could stop after reading the foreword and the first three essays without missing much.)

didion explores the falsity now built in to the political process. throughout the essays she presents and analyzes various instances of these falsehoods, usually relating to the development of a self-contained political class that is unconcerned with the actual wants of the populace and ranging from 1988 to 2000. the thesis she presents is engaging and still appears relevant to modern politics, and her analysis is cutting and, again, could be applied to today. however, her essays inevitably concern themselves with people and events and ideas no longer relevant to the modern day (though they were sometimes alarmingly relevant). in the middle of the text in particular, her essays explore specific political leaders and other members of this “political class,” and the names of reporters and politicians and donors and political scientists (and the often referenced but never fully described campaign positions) overwhelmed me. i think even for those who do have an understanding of the politics from the late 80s to y2k, some of the middle essays in particular might be challenging to stay focused through, given the sheer volume of quotes from and references to other reporters, politicians, and political scientists from that period. to that extent, the book falls again into the trap that didion describes: it is designed only for the political class and their targeted audience. and though this may not be entirely accidental, it is still frustrating to someone who isn’t/wasn't in that audience. 4 stars

Joan Didion's, "Political Fictions," Is a collection of about ten essays that primarily deal with how presidential campaigns are so staged that almost everything you see a candidate say or do, right down to how many steps it takes a candidate to walk from the Oval Office to greet a group of reporters is choreographed. It more or less covers the period from 1981 to 2000, with a heavy emphasis on 1988 to 2000. There are roughly ten essays, the reason I can't give a correct figure is because so many of the essays have what you would call separate chapters.

Out of the ten essays, there are five that are nothing short of outstanding, insightful, and riveting... So much so that the other five are somewhat of a disappointment.

The one about President Ronald Reagan and his years in the White House is fascinating and funny. Mr. Reagan, in a sense, went from a motion picture actor and TV star, to literally playing the part of the President of the United States. In the evening he would receive a schedule of the things he had to do the next day, and as he went down the list he crossed out each one he had just finished, and when everything on the list was completed that was more or less the end of his work day. He performed the duties of the President no different than if he was following a script for a movie and what was expected of him that day... What shots he would be in, exchange of dialogue, following the directions of the camera person and director.

In contrast to the one on Reagan, the one on the Central American debacle was nothing short of a moral and humanitarian disgrace. The Reagan administration at the time was trying to get more money from the Congress to support the army and government in El Salvador which was under attack from leftist communists. What would become known as "The Massacre of El Mazote," where the Salvadoran army went into a Peasant village and killed between 750 and 900 innocent civilians, more than half women and children and babies, many burned to death and buried beneath a church. The optics and coverage of such a massacre would have killed any aid to the Salvadoran government. The administration, along with advisors from the American embassy, never verified
The massacre, and reporters could not get close to the scene, so it wasn't until six years later the true story came out, not the one put out at the time, that if it did happen it was the communists dressed in army outfits that committed the murders.

It was essays like the two above, and three others that make this book of essays so worth the read. The other five are good, but not nearly as compelling and somewhat convoluted.

I have some very clear problems with this book.

Although Didion likes to think of herself an outsider, and not a journalist but a writer, her obvious connections to political figures and her deep, first hand knowledge of political events and networks makes her very much a political insider. Because of this, Didion often comes off as an extremely biased journalist. She wants both the leniency of being a “writer” alongside the access and connections that comes with being a “journalist.” These two ideas coexisting greatly decreases her credibility in my eyes.

Didion’s bias runs rampant in these essays, but is most clearly shown when discussing Clinton. Even during the primaries, Didion does not like Clinton at all for no reason other than she supports one of his opponents (a Governor Brown who was “over at her husband’s house the other week.” Again, deep political connections here). In a later essay, Didion claims that somehow she always knew Clinton was a “sexual predator” and anyone who has gone to public school would recognize it immediately as well (???). Hindsight is 20/20 I guess.

I really wish I liked this more, but mostly because people who read Didion seem so chic. Sad I can’t be one of them.

In one of the stronger collections of her essays, Political Fictions revisits a series of essays she wrote in the last decade of the 20th century on assignment for The New York Review of Books. In these writings she covers the elections between 1988 and 2000 and finds much to talk about. Dukakis, Bush the first, Bush the second, and Clinton are the main focus but we also see references to Monica and " Compassionate Conservatism. "

Through it all what Didion most observes is the corruption of the political class, the self described importance of the opinions and thoughts of the Washington set.

The essays are all strong, written with Didion's customary structure that lesser writers would sell their soul for, but, to speak, of one that nails it's subject matter "Vichy Washington " is a good place to start. I lived through, was a functioning adult during the Clinton sex scandals of the late nineties, and the same things I witnessed and wondered about she writes about. The constant drumbeat during the Lewinsky scandal of " the tainted office of the Presidency " by the mainstream press, not just the far right, but the David Broder's of the world was never ending. These same experts were shocked when Clinton's popularity stayed high, or, in some cases, increased. After the 98 mid terms they were flabbergasted. Still, and here is the most salient point, was the agenda set by the talking heads in 2000, Bush v Gore, that despite a booming economy and much to brag about, the Democrats, i.e Gore, cannot run on that record or make claim to it because of the disgust the voters have with President Clinton. A disgust, as she points out, that had not shown in anyway in the polls or elections having taken place since the event. In other words having failed to forecast correctly in 98, the Washington elite did not change their opinion, recognize a different thing going on, instead they doubled down in 2000 stealing from Gore his best levers to pull.

For all the talk of the liberal media it should be, must be, pointed out that it was this group that moralized against Clinton and incapacitated Gore. Sure the rabid right did their thing but their audience is limited to those already in the choir. No, Gore was taken out by this group, but moreover Gore took himself out. Perhaps Albert Gore Jr. really was disgusted by his President, perhaps he could not bring himself to accept the man with faults AND a spectacular economy. Didion opines however that Gore allowed the agenda to be set in ways that crippled him in a campaign that it would take an imbecile to lose.

Nothing does a reader more enjoy than to have his opinion validated in something he reads. From the left, from the right, we all love an echo chamber as long as it is our voice we hear. In 2000 during the convention I always felt that if Gore would have just embraced his President, his flawed man like all of us are, that the people, the undecideds, would have appreciated the loyalty. Instead Clinton was hidden in the campaign. The media, the left leaning media, set the tone, agenda, and issues of the campaign. Still the fault lay more with the Vice President, by allowing them to do so, by accepting their storyline as opposed to what was obvious in the reactions and opinions of the actual voters, Gore perhaps got the fate he deserved and we all lived to regret.

“The distinct possibility that an entire generation of younger voters might see no point in choosing between two candidates retelling the same remote story could benefit only one campaign, the Republican, and failure of the Democratic campaign to recognize this could yet neutralize the advantage of the legacy it has worked so assiduously to disavow.”

Joan the GOAT

3.5
Had to pick this one up considering the current political climate/election… I was inspired to read it after Trump got shot and a lot of my friends were speculating that this event would help his campaign.

Most of this book is definitely not timeless. I liked the first two essays in particular because they touched on important historical moments and trends that are very relevant today (politcal theater and US involvement with Latin America). But much of this book I didn’t find to be particularly interesting or relevant to myself.

Didion’s commentary on the pageantry of conventions and campaigning in her essay “Insider Baseball” was fascinating. On Dukakis trying to seem more relatable:

“Kara Dukakis had tossed the ball to her father. Her father had caught the ball and tossed it back to her.
‘OK,’ one of the cameramen had said. ‘We got the daughter. Nice. That’s enough. Nice.’
The CNN producer then on the campaign told me, later in the day, that the first recorded ball tossing on the Dukakis campaign had been outside a bowling alley somewhere in Ohio. CNN had shot it. When the campaign realized that only one camera had it, they restaged it.
‘We have a lot of things like the ball tossing,’ the producer said. ‘We have the Greek dancing, for example.’”

In “Eyes on the Prize,” Clinton employing the car salesman skills he learned from his father into politics:

“Instead of talking about Democrats lifting someone out of poverty, describe the party’s goal as helping average Americans live the good life.
Instead of saying the Democrats want to provide healthcare for the poor, focus on making sure all working Americans have coverage…”

The idea I found most interesting was Didion’s condemnation on the two party system. It prevents dialogue, keeps us focused on “carefully chosen/symbolic issues, American elections are necessarily debated on “character,” or “values…””

Lance Mannion on the Journalist as Impressionist:

The best journalism is the work of writers who see it as their job to base their opinions on verifiable facts and deliver impressions that are the result of taking a long, hard look at the facts and thinking deeply and seriously about them in order to understand what they hinge on and what hinges on them.

That’s what Bill Moyers does. That’s what Joan Didion does, that’s what John McPhee does, and, when they were in their prime, used to do as well as anyone has ever done.

I posit that this still qualifies as "prime."