ABRAMS: Media’s fixation on Beto hurts Democrats
On March 13, Vanity Fair published an 8,800-word cover story glossed with a portrait of Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke: his brown-gray hair tussled over his forehead, bucolic Texas landscape in the background and door of his Toyota Tundra ajar. The piece profiles him in detail, covering everything from his penchant for punk rock to his presidential ambitions. “Man, I'm just born to be in it,” he said.
During his meteoric rise to fame in the 2018 Texas Senate race, he leveraged his charisma and social media prowess to attract the attention of every national outlet. Headlines adorned with his name abounded online. In November, The Hill published “Beto 2020 calls multiply among Dems.” In August, Vanity Fair published “Could Beto O’Rourke be the next Obama?”
This non-stop coverage could explain, meanwhile, how he has amassed hundreds of thousands of social media followers and bested every Democrat in fundraising on the first day of his presidential campaign. He also received nearly double the media coverage within five days of his campaign launch than any candidate received in the first week of their campaign.
When examining O'Rourke’s emergence as a political star, attributing some of it to the media’s fixation on his Senate campaign, the author of the Vanity Fair cover story, Joe Hagan, said: “Positions on issues matter, of course, but they aren’t everything.”
But when did substantive policy positions — ones that delineate thoughtful solutions to problems such as healthcare coverage, Big Tech monopolies and college affordability — stop being “everything?”
After a brief stint representing Texas in the U.S. House of Representatives, O’Rourke was the primary sponsor of three enacted bills. This list of policy successes is meager compared to those of other major Democratic candidates for president. Meanwhile, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) just introduced stunningly comprehensive criminal justice legislation, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) spearheaded the effort to establish what is now the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau before her legislative career even began.
When one visits O'Rourke's nascent 2020 campaign website, one can see it is pretty empty. Axios dubbed him a “blank canvas” that bounces policy ideas off of the voters he is trying to court. “We’re going to define ourselves by … the ability to bring this country together,” he said to a crowd in Wisconsin last week. That statement sounds like he watched every presidential stump speech in the last 50 years, jumbled up every trite “unity” statement he could find and came up with that.
All of this evidence points to either a lack of understanding of the processes of policymaking, or a lack of knowledge of what policy positions he actually stands for: Or both. And if either conclusion is true about O'Rourke, then I cannot understand why the media has grown so fixated on him, and not other candidates with more palpable policy accomplishments. Swarms of feminist writers have an explanation, though: Sexism.
In a March 15 Politico piece, author Natasha Korecki shrewdly brought attention to the disproportionate media coverage O'Rourke has received compared to more policy-focused female Democratic candidates like Warren, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.).
It is no secret that any of the female Democratic candidates for president have a firmer grasp on policy than O'Rourke. Several times per day, I receive lengthy e-mails from the Warren campaign outlining detailed policy proposals, from her plan to mitigate the exploitative power of several monopolistic tech companies to her path to achieving universal childcare.
Even her comparatively nebulous declaration of the need to abolish the Electoral College is more specific than anything currently listed on O'Rourke’s website. Meanwhile, Gillibrand’s website is packed with a litany of policy positions: her intentions to fight climate change, her plan for expanding the social safety net and her devotion to affordable public college.
These policy positions demonstrate both Warren and Gillibrand’s unwavering commitment to bettering the lives of Americans in the perhaps clearest possible way. Yet, O'Rourke dominates the coverage, glitzy magazine covers and fundraising charts.
The media’s fixation on O’Rourke’s affable personality — rather than on candidates that are churning out substantive policy plans and visions for our country — is a mistake that will hurt Democrats in need of a skilled political player who can negotiate with Republicans to pass impactful legislation. Sure, a charming Southern persona may win an election against President Donald J. Trump.
But if Democrats are serious about bringing much-needed change to the lives of millions of Americans — climate change action, the ability to see a doctor at a reasonable cost and tax cuts for working families — they should work to put a stop to the O'Rourke madness.
Ashley Abrams is a School of Arts and Sciences junior majoring in political science. Her column, "Thank U, Next Opinion," runs on alternate Wednesdays.
*Columns, cartoons and letters do not necessarily reflect the views of the Targum Publishing Company or its staff.
YOUR VOICE | The Daily Targum welcomes submissions from all readers. Due to space limitations in our print newspaper, letters to the editor must not exceed 500 words. Guest columns and commentaries must be between 700 and 850 words. All authors must include their name, phone number, class year and college affiliation or department to be considered for publication. Please submit via email to [email protected] by 4 p.m. to be considered for the following day’s publication. Columns, cartoons and letters do not necessarily reflect the views of the Targum Publishing Company or its staff.
