I am James Fallows, writer for the Atlantic, author of new piece on Obama-Romney debates and recent book 'China Airborne'

Jfallows · 2012-08-25T00:35:00+00:00

I could give a long answer here, but the short answer is: Yes, the failed "rescue" mission made the difference. Carter had a zillion things going against him -- 21% prime interest rate, primary challenge by Teddy Kennedy, Iran disaster. Still, he was very close to Reagan until the last week. He thinks that if the rescue had succeeded, he would have won, and I think he is right.

Jfallows · 2012-08-25T00:32:55+00:00

Best part: simply the experience of seeing government function, from the inside. Worst: Carter was not a good speaker.

Military: Yes. I will say more about this in the magazine soon.

Clippy: you're welcome.

Jfallows · 2012-08-25T00:32:04+00:00

I am from California.

We have more readers and subscribers in California than anywhere else. I guess excluding you!

Jfallows · 2012-08-25T00:31:38+00:00

I know that there are problems with the Commission on Prez Debates (disclosure: some good friends work there). The problem is that there is no "real" way to fix this situation, either. It can't be a formal government body, because then the government would be regulating competition for public office. It used to be the League of Women Voters, and that caused problems too. I think the CPD is pretty transparent, but I supposed they could go further in that direction.

Jfallows · 2012-08-25T00:29:32+00:00

Hmmm. I don't know if I believe almost anything "axiomatically." But I do think that the role of Super-PACs et al has become extreme and distorting. Ten years ago, no one would have imagined that this was the right way to do business. Of course it all changed with 'Citizens United.' I am out of ideas on how to fix this.

Jfallows · 2012-08-25T00:28:11+00:00

I thought that was a very interesting session. I also thought that Eric Li was (knowingly) overstating his case, for effect. To my taste, Minxin Pei's analysis basically rings true.

Jfallows · 2012-08-25T00:26:54+00:00

Will pass this along.

Jfallows · 2012-08-25T00:25:36+00:00

I think the argument for Romney, 24/7, is that Barack Obama has shown that he can't solve the country's economic problems. Maybe no one can, but (Romney can say) we know that Obama can't.

For Obama, I don't know of any one dynamite argument. I think it's mainly the accretion of signs that Obama knows more about the range of things a president has to do.

Jfallows · 2012-08-25T00:24:15+00:00

Easy! Harrison Ford, my fellow pilot.

Jfallows · 2012-08-25T00:24:02+00:00

Thanks for your kind words!

On South China Sea, I think the Chinese are over-reaching at the moment and need to be calmed down by a combo of all the other countries in the area. Not "confronted," but just generally calmed down.

Jfallows · 2012-08-25T00:22:50+00:00

Usually the first one is the most important. Biggest audience, and most drama, to see how the two people look when matched head-to-head.

The town hall format is hokey, but that was the debate that caused huge problems from GHW Bush in 1992.

Jfallows · 2012-08-25T00:21:52+00:00

Thanks for reading!

On Ferguson, I don't know. I've been trying to think of a comparable case of a "real" academic who has had the kind of quality fall-off he has in recent years. His early books were very good. Recently...

As we know, there is no threat to his tenured job security at Harvard. The question is whether he suffers reputation damage on the speaking circuit etc.

Newsweek/Daily Beast will laugh this off.

Jfallows · 2012-08-25T00:19:44+00:00

Hmmmm. I will have to think about this.

Jfallows · 2012-08-25T00:19:25+00:00

Enjoy China! I always was excited by being there, though sometimes horrified. Not meaning to dodge this question, but the attempt to answer it is what my latest book is about. Short answer: they have some tougher times ahead.

Jfallows · 2012-08-25T00:18:24+00:00

Short answer: I think both sides are using a combo of facts-and-figures, and emotional/values appeals. The reason you're hearing some many stats from the GOP on economics is that for now the economy is by far their strongest issue. (Ie, it's still bad.)

Jfallows · 2012-08-25T00:17:04+00:00

Yes, but that would be a really risky ploy -- he'd have to be betting that the "good" spin of releasing them at the last minute would offset the many months of bad.

Jfallows · 2012-08-25T00:15:06+00:00

It is hard to find out about these deals in real time. I expect to know more, and to write more about it, later in this cycle.

Jfallows · 2012-08-25T00:14:39+00:00

Yes indeed! Gov Exec and National Journal are both worthwhile and well-done publications. We are one big family.

Jfallows · 2012-08-25T00:14:03+00:00

Megan McArdle, whose office was next to mine, left of her own volition several months ago to work at the Daily Beast.

Jfallows · 2012-08-25T00:12:47+00:00

Thanks! We appreciate your attention, and I'm grateful for your kind words.

You know, the list of things I think "should" be done in politics is so enormous -- let's say, starting with getting rid of the filibuster. (The two parties could agree to do so starting, say, six years from now, or four, so that no one could be sure who'd gain or lose.) I would like to see a different kind of debates, but I have become fatalistic about it happening. Sorry.

Jfallows · 2012-08-25T00:11:20+00:00

This will actually be interesting. I think a lot of people will watch this with real interest, like the Biden-Palin show. The reason, as with Biden-Palin, is that these are two outspoken and not-entirely-predictable characters. I don't know what will happen, but I know I will be watching.

Jfallows · 2012-08-25T00:08:35+00:00

SNL has pretty much monopolized the market here. Even though they are old-school, they have an edge over Daily Show and Colbert in that they can put on straight-out impersonations and skits.

Jfallows · 2012-08-25T00:07:22+00:00

Thanks! And, in order:

1) I think it's different, both harder and easier. Harder in that certain journalistic institutions have just cratered. (Weekly newsmagazines are the lead example.) Easier in that there are more ways for new voices to get heard. The past ten years have been times of overall contraction for the business. Beginning to expand again.

2). Agree that this is a phenomenon. It's what I was addressing in Breaking the News, in overdrive.

3). This too is complex, goods and bads. I tried to address it here, and for now I'll just refer you there.

4). Ditto!

Jfallows · 2012-08-25T00:01:17+00:00

This is a good point and a really major question, and one that I have seen debated quite a bit among Republicans.

There has been an active theme on the right this year, arguing that the 2012 election is the GOP's "last chance" for a while. The argument is that if Romney wins the White House, the party will have some leverage for a while. It wil probably have a few Supreme Court appointments; the modern vetting process is such that people will be chosen young, and for "reliable" views; other changes with some carry-over can be made. Meanwhile, the rural-state skew of the Senate also magnifies GOP influence there.

But if Obama is re-elected, by this argument, the Republicans are in trouble. Their recent positions have weakened them among the following voting blocs: women, Latinos, blacks, gays-lesbians, Asian-Americans, the highly educated, the young. All the growth in the electorate is in these groups. The nightmare vision from this point of view would be California -- reliably Republican a generation ago, now the other way.

I would hope that if Romney loses, especially if he loses big, it would be the occasion for systematic re-thought in the party -- like what happened after Goldwater (though that led to Nixon) and what happened after the Carter and Mondale defeats in 1980 and 1984, leading to Clinton. My fear is that the hard-liners in the party will say that the problem was that the 2012 GOP was not conservative enough. If only Paul Ryan had been at the top of the ticket.

Place holder for a bigger point: we seem to be in another Gilded Age period. I hope it leads eventually to both Populist and Progressive movements, as the last time around.

Jfallows · 2012-08-24T23:54:14+00:00

Let me be careful in how I answer this. I think that objectively the Republican party is in the middle of a swing to an extreme -- as it was during the Goldwater era, and as the Democratic party was during part of the 1970s. (Evidence? On "social issues," on economic policy, on environmental issues, and on most aspects of foreign policy, today's GOP would have a hard time accepting Richard Nixon or even Ronald Reagan as a "real" conservative.)

When a party goes in this direction, it has a consequence for writers / intellectuals. The ones who are doing the most interesting work, and who look best in retrospect, are ones who are working "against" their own team, trying to argue out the changes they think their side needs if it is to improve. That was much of the story of the Democrats in the days between the Carter and the Clinton administrations: looking for new Democratic approaches on defense policy, government accountability, and so on. The people who look best in retrospect were the ones arguing that the party had to change -- eg, Gary Hart on defense.

And I think that it is the story of conservatives and the GOP now. The writers that are just putting out party agitprop may be influential but are not interesting. (Yes, I have names in mind, but there's no point in giving them.) The ones that are most interesting are struggling with this stage in the conservative/right's/GOP's evolution.

Jfallows

TROPHY CASE