The politics of schadenfreude

John Dickerson aptly declared that in 2008, taking offense is often a campaign’s best offensive strategy. He called it “the politics of umbrage” and noted, “If done correctly, candidates can exploit flamboyant displays of public upset to gain attention, raise money, put their opponents on the defensive, and distract from an unfavorable story.” Tiresome though it was to watch Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama take turns feigning outrage at one another’s attacks, the tactic has its place: truly unfair attacks reveal something ugly about the attacking candidate’s judgment, character and temperament.

But the arrival of Sarah Palin has inspired a variation on “the politics of umbrage” that is wholly illegitimate. The GOP is stoking indignation at the way journalists, commentators and Democrats unconnected to the Obama campaign are disrespecting her — and hoping that indignation translates into money and votes.

I take no position here about whether the treatment of Gov. Palin by her critics is legitimate. Instead, I insist that even if the mainstream media, East Coast elites, New York Times op-ed columnists, Andrew Sullivan, Charlie Gibson, the whole faculty of Harvard, feminists who supported Hillary Clinton, and every dinner party attendee in Manhattan and San Francisco were tarnishing the Alaska governor’s reputation, and understating her abilities in the most unfair ways imaginable, none of the above would say anything about whether she is qualified to be vice president!

This isn’t a condemnation of voters motivated by indignation at Palin’s treatment. I sympathize with their reaction. I’ve felt it myself during another close presidential election.

Having rooted for John McCain in the 2000 GOP primary, and for Bill Bradley in the Democratic race, the November contest felt a bit like watching a championship sporting event for which none of my teams qualified. The Texas persona of George W. Bush struck me as rather silly, though on substance he hewed closer to my positions than his opponent.

In hindsight, however, I must admit that it wasn’t just policy questions that drove my mild preference for a Bush victory. It was also an immature desire to stick it to those with whom I disagreed politically — an impulse I’ve since dubbed “the politics of schadenfreude” (enjoyment taken from the misfortune of someone else). The fact that I felt it, even long ago, is embarrassing to admit in print, for taking pleasure in the misfortune of others is always a shameful emotion.

Even so, a full reckoning is necessary.

At age 20, I found myself on a college campus in a deeply flawed intellectual climate. As I read the student newspaper, attended the residential programming and observed the student activists, I saw a vocal minority so hostile to any deviation from the liberal consensus that they cowed many who disagreed into silence.

Frustrated by the campus climate and skeptical of anti-Bush claims that struck me as outlandish, I did a foolish thing: I let my preference for who would win the presidency be influenced — though not wholly determined — by the emotional satisfaction I’d get from seeing people who annoyed me lose the election.

Of course, the candidate I preferred on the issues did win. But my behavior as a voter sent the message that an unimpressive man, drafted by the party apparatus, could help his chances at being elected by provoking hyperbolic criticism and cannily taking umbrage. The Bush administration exploited that tactic to such spectacular, damaging effect later on that I am loath to admit my complicity in the schadenfreude, even all these years later.

By copping to it, I hope I can convince certain of my fellow citizens that I’m sympathetic to their perspective. Yes, it’s maddening that some “urban elites” take all supporters of Palin to be reactionary fools, that some journalists are unconsciously harder on GOP candidates. All that is lamentable, wrongheaded — and no reason to prove them right by backing a candidate based on little information and a few comforting cultural cues.

Unless they begin judging McCain and Palin independently of whether there is a liberal bias in the media, or whether blue state Democrats are condescending, or whether attacks on her are beyond the pale, the subset of McCain voters who care about the conservative project are going to lose.

Daniel Larison, contributing editor to The American Conservative, notices lots of voters talking about how Palin “gets” the experience of being an ordinary American. “The implication is that it means something that she ‘gets’ their experience,” he writes. “Of course, there is no necessary connection between her passion for hunting big game, fishing, going to an evangelical church or living in a small town and her political agenda.”

The people who run the Republican Party are rewarded in prestige and treasure based on election results, not advancing a conservative agenda. So they are quick to realize that they need not do the hard work of finding the best candidate on substance, or running the most honorable campaigns, unless voters demand as much as a requirement for their support. Absent that, the GOP establishment hasn’t sufficient incentive to run races, as Ronald Reagan did, that convince Americans on the issues and create a mandate for governing accordingly. Not when running against the media and “the elites” is easier.

Politics is the business of deciding who is going to govern, the policies they are going to implement and the method by which the government is managed. Deriving happiness from campaigns is beside the point, as is any emotional satisfaction gleaned from sticking it to the other guy, no matter how bad his behavior.

The substance of who will govern best isn’t just what matters most, it is all that matters — the only factor that should inform one’s vote. Until Republican voters start behaving accordingly, the GOP will continue to engage in the politics of schadenfreude, and a country deprived of a credible party on the right will suffer.

Conor Friedersdorf is features editor at Culture11, a right-of-center Web magazine. His e-mail is conor@culture11.com.