On the one hand you have the Feiler Faster Thesis, which holds that in our era of rapidly churning news cycles, seemingly major stories vanish quickly and alter the political landscape for a shorter period than one would think. The Feiler Faster thesis suggests that by the time Iowans fill their buggies with ethanol and head out to caucus on Thursday, the disturbing events in Pakistan will have long since receded from the public’s mind. And on the other hand, you have what my barista at Starbucks told me yesterday. Yesterday, my wife and I headed into Starbucks for her daily afternoon rendezvous with a grandé 2% latte with an extra shot. As is her custom, she bent down to purchase a New York Times. (I keep telling her they give it away for free on the internet, but does she listen?) But there were no copies of the Times in the bin, a rarity for this southern Florida Starbucks. She asked the barista where the Times was, and he told us, “Everyone wanted to read about that thing in Pakistan. We were sold out by noon. That never happens.” The assassination of Benazhir Bhutto may have a significant impact on the American electorate. This isn’t because the typical American habitually follows the Pakistani political scene with painstaking diligence. I highly doubt the average American could find Pakistan on a map. As we’ve seen, even some presidential candidates appear to have a bit of trouble in that regard. But the symbolism of what happened on Thursday is powerful. Jihadist thugs murdered an attractive, westernized woman in cold blood. The attack had the shock value of a major act of terrorism. Obviously its impact doesn’t compare to 9/11, but its impact is significant. Sometimes much of the public forgets how pitiless and dangerous our enemies are. Thursday’s events provided a jolting reminder to the greater public on this score. This story wasn’t just for news junkies. Of course, the media’s preferred narrative regarding Bhutto has had an impact. Friday’s elegiac media coverage of Bhutto completely ignored the more, shall we say, nuanced aspects of her life. Ralph Peters of the New York Post served as a strident one man truth squad regarding Bhutto’s actual life as compared to the instantly spawned media mythology. Peters’s efforts notwithstanding, the public’s perception of Bhutto’s life and death is clear. So will this impact the presidential race in general and specifically the Iowa caucuses? On the Democratic side, the answer is no. Democrats have spent the last four years convincing themselves that the biggest (and only) threat to the world is George W. Bush. It will take something seismic to shake them from that view.
But on the Republican side, the Bhutto assassination will have an impact. Even conservatives sometimes need reminders that this is a consequential election. The Bhutto assassination provides a reminder of the nature of our times, a reminder whose echoes will linger long after the story ceases to be an above-the-fold item. The consensus opinion regarding the three finalists is that when the campaign turns to security issues, McCain benefits a lot, Romney benefits a bit, and Huckabee suffers. While horserace analysis is fun, it would be a fine thing for the country, not to mention the Republican party, if the voters in Iowa and elsewhere thought of consequential things when casting their ballots. And it would be an even finer thing if the candidates could deliver serious campaigns down the homestretch worthy of the serious times we’re living in. I’ll check with my barista on the likelihood of that happening.
