Horse-race political analysis is important — and flawed. We need more moral journalism.

November 26, 2020

By Michael Gerson,

If you know any political journalists or pollsters in this holiday season, it might be a good idea to give them a friendly, socially distanced wave or some nicely wrapped hand sanitizer. They could use some bucking up.

The horse-race polling that occupies so much of their attention has once again proved deeply flawed. After the collective flub of 2016 — which consistently underestimated Donald Trump’s support by about four points — the new, improved, refined, adjusted version of national polling underestimated Trump’s support by about four points. This means that coverage and commentary based on the premise of a sizable, sustained Joe Biden lead were distorted.

The explanation, I am sure, is complex. But one portion seems simple enough. The type of people who show up at Trump rallies often do not show up (in representative numbers) in polling. Imagine asking, as a warm-up speaker at a Trump rally, “How many of you want to inconvenience yourself for the sake of a Washington Post-ABC News poll?” Or: “Raise your hand if you want to provide personal information for a New York Times-Siena College survey.” The reception would probably be poor.

Whatever its cause, the crisis faced by polling is leading to some soul-searching. Maybe the whole business of political analysis and commentary has placed too much emphasis on opinion polls. Maybe there should be less focus on the horse-race aspect of politics and more on the issues facing the country. Maybe we should rebalance political coverage away from who is up and who is down in favor of candidates’ policy proposals on pandemic response, or police reform, or containing Chinese aggression.

This kind of issues journalism is important, and there should be more of it. An informed electorate, in the long run, will have better democratic outcomes. But the urgent problem of American politics is not an insufficient airing of policy disagreements; it is that policy views have become a function of cultural identity.

A matter such as climate disruption, for example, attracts comparatively little informed and reasoned disagreement. Climate skepticism has become a tenet of populism — a revolt against elitist scientists and liberal politicians seeking excuses for social and economic control. The denial of climate change has become a cultural signifier, the policy equivalent of a gun rack in a truck.

Will an issues-based political journalism/analysis/commentary speak across this yawning social gap? Maybe sometimes.

But the problem goes deeper still. Many of our most serious divisions have become openly moral. In the current case, the president and his strongest supporters believe that their cause — the maintenance of power — is worth the massive invalidation of legitimate votes in disproportionately Black urban areas. They claim this is a moral action — to fight socialism, or to protect tradition, or to serve their illustrious leader, or whatever.

They are wrong. And only an ethical argument can demonstrate it. It is racist to seek the invalidation of mainly Black votes in Detroit, Milwaukee, Philadelphia or Atlanta. It is a violation of morality and an attack on democracy to throw away valid votes for nakedly political reasons.

Such arguments are located in a larger moral context. It is wrong to use other people as objects of manipulation rather than as human beings with inherent dignity. It is wrong to vilify social and cultural groups — migrants or refugees or Muslims — as a method to stir up anger and gain political support. It is wrong.

The ultimate political questions are thus: Is moral argumentation still possible? Do people still feel shame when their prejudice and cruelty are exposed to scrutiny? Do most people have some kernel of conscience that can grow under the right circumstances?

These ultimate questions are always open ones. In the primordial past — say, the 1980s — it was conservatives who stood against moral relativism. They argued that “if it feels good, do it” does not provide an adequate basis for our lives together, because it gives no root to our rights, and because cruel and despicable things feel good to some.

Now it is the right that embraces relativism. No doubt it felt good to Trump and adviser Stephen Miller to have government agents snatch migrant children from their parents’ arms. The argument against such an outrage is moral. “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble,” said a distinguished moral teacher, “it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.”

This is not to argue against the importance of horse-race journalism or issues journalism, both of which will always have their place. It is only to put in a good word for moral journalism and moral commentary — which reveal the names and faces of those who suffer, and remind us of the duties we have to one another.

Read more: David Hill: The dirty little secret pollsters need to own up to Mark Mellman: Polling isn’t broken. But we too often miss its hidden signals. David Byler: Did ‘Shy Trump Voters’ throw off the polls? Maybe not. Eugene Robinson: Want to understand Biden voters? Here’s your reading list.

Source: WP