Who’s On the Left’s Television A-Team?

I haven’t watched the great Krugman vs. Scarborough showdown on the Charlie Rose Show, but a friend has, and he says Scarborough won a crushing victory. He sent me a fuming email about it:

I’m pretty angry that Krugman didn’t seem to anticipate what was coming. And he clearly displayed the wonks’ debilitating inability to simplify and strongly advocate their policy prescriptions, while simply and clearly tearing down the other side’s positions. This is extremely important because historically wonks lose out to the gasbags, and that can lead to horrific governance and policy issues. Krugman’s debating talents, such as they are, are not suited for most broad television audiences. And, in direct contrast, that is all Scarborough’s arguments and debating style are suited for.

The most depressing thing about this, though, is other than Bill Clinton, I can’t think of anyone on the left who can clearly and nimbly take somebody like Scarborough apart. Sure, there are many that can do it in an 800 word column the next day — Krugman being one of the best at this — but that’s nowhere near the same thing.

I’m not here to pile on Krugman. Scarborough has years of experience as both politician and TV host, and he knows all the tricks of the trade. Most of us don’t. This obviously just isn’t Krugman’s sweet spot.

But I’m more interested in my friend’s final question: who do we have on the left who’s got the real-world debating skills to take on someone like Scarborough? Who’s on our television A-team? Not folks who can win technical debating points, but folks who can rabble-rouse with the best of them and hold their own against slick carnival barkers like Scarborough? Jared Bernstein seems to do OK in the lion’s den of Larry Kudlow’s show. Who else?

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.