Customer Reviews

Fat Man Fed Up: How American Politics Went Bad

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Jack Germond offers the insight of an old pro looking back, a respected Baltimore Sun political correspondent who gained fame throughout America as a regular commentator on the McLaughlin Report. His politics are liberal and he tells you so, but that does not mean that he lays all the blame in his reflective and highly critical analysis of the current political system on the political right. He believes that there is more than enough blame to go around on all sides.

If anyone thought that Germond might spare the profession through which he made a handsome living from the criticism he levels at the system, the reader is promptly disabused of such a notion. Germond indicts his own profession harshly. Sure, he is aware and makes note of the importance of making a buck, selling advertising, and dramatizing stories. He laments the talking head trend and oversimplification in place of analysis, but does not indict commercialism as the sole beast. Germond believes that all too often reporters take the easy and lazy way out. Create an interesting story, spin it until it wears out, and save oneself a lot of thinking, not to mention shoe leather.

As for the politicians, he reveals that the positions they take all too often involve pandering to a ready made base, a "don't rock the boat" attitude, rather than any solid belief in those core positions, which are stated emphatically, in the manner of a true believer, but to achieve effect rather than as a manifestation of conscience and analytical reflection. A candid comment from Senator Ernest Hollings of South Carolina is employed to move into an important domain of criticism. When Germond asked him point blank if he was considering running for president, Hollings replied, "Jack, senators think about running for president all the time."

Hollings's frankness caused Germond to reflect on the matter. His conclusion is that at all levels of government, from city council to governors and U.S. senators, a stepping stone mentality remains steadfast. A popular councilman, rather than focusing intently on the district, is thinking about a next move up the ladder to Congress. Once elected to Congress, thoughts begin turning toward the senate. Alas, once in the senate thoughts turn toward the White House. Germond sees the "reach for the ring" distraction as redounding against the needs and interests of constituents who put the officeholders in office in the first place.

Sloppy reporting, oversimplification, and dramatization in place of issue analysis have proved costly. The laziness of reporters along with the desire to spin a drama rather than provide the tools for reader and viewer education has resulted in a general dumbing down of the entire political process. Germond is informing us that we had better not hold our breath and expect any positive changes anytime soon.

Hopefully Germond will be proven unduly pessimistic. He hopes so as much as we do. He tells us not to count on it, though, and sees himself and the rest of us walking through the Forest Gump thickets in a haze rather than focusing intelligently on our problems.

The best lesson to take from this book is to consider it a constructive slap on the face. Once slapped take an active interest in what is going on from the local level all the way to the presidency. If enough informed people demanded enough answers Jack Germond would be the first one to beam a happy smile.

Jack Germond has over 40 years experience in covering politics, from the city level right through Presidential campaigns. He's seen it all: the boozers, the philanderers, the corrupt, the ignorant, the ideologue, and the idealist. He uses that experience to demonstrate how our political system has gotten to the point where people care more about hairstyles and superficial symbols over real substance and constructive debate. Sometimes, the stories are pretty funny, but generally, this is a depressing and unforgiving look at both print and (especially) television "journalism" and how they are used by the two major parties to keep out any potential competitors, and to keep the complicated issues we face simplified beyond resolution into sound bites. I sincerely doubt that the anonymous reviewer(s) from D.C. actually read the book, as no specific examples of their complaint are offered for examination. Germond has almost always acted as the force of moderation, with a degree of what used to be called "horse sense" sorely lacking in so many of today's columnists and anchors. His stories span the once-wider stretches of our political spectrum and the now-forgotten civility between the parties, and I can't blame him for decrying how spin, never-ending campaigns, and millions upon millions of campaign dollars have either discouraged the average voter or created voting blocks incapable of independant thought. I can't imagine a better way to spend an evening or two reading this and imagining sitting with Jack over a steak and a couple of martinis, wistfully reminiscing over what promise our country held, and wondering desperately how we can get back on track. A great read, highly recommended.

By far, the most entertaining and insightful book of the 2004 political season is the newly-released FAT MAN FED UP. It is a "must read" for serious students of American electoral politics and the four-year cycle of its continual decay. Germond, one of the most experienced political reporters in the country, is at his best, both witty and biting, in his assessment of presidential elections, candidates, and, of course, the electorate itself. Do yourself a favor and read it before voting in November.

Jack Germond has been one of my favorite political reporters for years. Germond is the "fat man" of the title. And he IS fed up with American electoral politics. As a newspaperman he covered national politics since the 1960 presidential election. He spent 20 years covering the political arena for the Gannett Newspapers, the Washington Star and the Baltimore Sun. I used to listen to his commentary regularly on the Today Show, The McLaughlin Group, and Inside Washington and, now that he has retired, I miss his punditry. I picked up a copy of his recent book "Fat Man Fed Up: How American Politics Went Bad," because I too am fed up and believe that today's politics are as bad as I have experienced - and I clearly remember some rotten political abuses in the 1960s and 70s. Germond addresses the decline of substance, civility and integrity in politics today. And he certainly doesn't disappoint readers with this scathing, witty, insightful assessment.

"Fat Man Fed Up" tackles problems that other journalists seem reluctant to address. Indeed he believes that one of the reasons politics has gone bad is because journalists have allowed it to. He laments that most newspapers seem to have lost interest in politics, while talk radio and cable TV news have increased divisiveness and partisanship in the country. Mr. Germond responds to complaints of liberal bias in the media and points out that these complaints "miss the real point." He questions if the bias actually exists, and if so, whether it colors the way editors and reporters work. Germond takes today's press to task for its failure to accurately portray prominent political figures - from Barbara Bush to Al Sharpton. Politicians and the media are criticized for their use and abuse of political polls to mislead uninformed and gullible voters.

Germond also holds forth on the extraordinary influence of TV on the electorate, and campaign coverage driven by sound bites. He reminds the reader that the TV networks control dialogue and all but the most simplistic, shallow political coverage is provided. Given that many Americans are not particularly knowledgeable or politically savvy, candidates and their managers know how to manipulate them. Meanwhile, Germond writes, the media focuses on all the wrong things - meaningless polls and meaningless scandals. I recently heard him cite the coverage given to whether John Kerry threw away his Vietnam War medals or his ribbons during a demonstration that occurred over 30 years ago. "Who cares?" he asks. Politics today, he claims, is built on television, money, and celebrity. Germond also blasts "the big lie" school of campaigning - where empty slogans and noise sell the candidates.

What I most enjoy about this book, however, are not the problems Germond discusses, but the wonderful anecdotes - the juicy tidbits - he supplies to illustrate his points. Most of these are drawn from his own experiences.

This is much more than the usual election year publication. "Fat Man Fed Up" is a memoir of sorts, of and by a reporter who has seen it all and offers you his memories, close up and personal, of past presidential candidates, elections and our political process. Mr. Germond's prose is a wonderful example of the plain style in American journalism. He conveys both facts and opinions in a crisp, concise manner, unadorned with spin or hype. He has a wonderful way with words and his prose is a pleasure to read. Pertinent, highly readable and, at times, outrageous, this book is difficult to put down. Highly recommended!
JANA

Jack Germond has been a writer on the political beat since roughly the Lincoln administration (just kidding, Jack). And he's reached a point in his life where he's free to speak his mind, even more directly and forcefully than he has throughout his career, which is saying a lot. This book will likely make some people on both ends of the political spectrum uneasy, but I consider it to be a very, VERY welcome addition to the public dialog.

I'm a fan of Jack Germond, especially the election books that he jointly wrote with his former partner (more about him later). I enjoyed both of his "Fat Man" books, and I agree with his opinions and analysis. I especially enjoy his anecdotes from the campaign trail.

The premise of this book is that the press does not serve its readers/viewers well in helping them pick leaders, focusing instead on trivial gaffes, and voters allow themselves to be manipulated, giving political operatives little incentive to change their tactics. (Germond notes that both Dukakis and Kerry gave the voters too much credit, thinking voters were too smart to fall for the slurs used against the candidates. They were both wrong.) In the end, we get the leaders we deserve: an empty suit like Bush I, the self-absorbed like Clinton, and Bush II, who under no stretch of the imagination should have held the office.

I did, however, get annoyed at one point in this book, where Germond shows contempt for his fans. He describes how a garage attendant was parking his car and was talking to Germond about the opinions he expressed while a panelist on "The McLaughlin Group", and Germond views him as a political junkie watching too much TV and thinks to himself, "Get a life."

Germond may have contempt for television opinion shows, but he was a willing participant in TMG. He describes how the show gave him some celebrity and enough extra cash so he could still be a reporter but live in a lifestyle better than most reporters. His contempt for the TV "news" discussion format (and especially TMG) should not extend to those who are interested enough in politics to pay attention. I actually thought he should be more considerate to a fan who was interested in what he had to say. Without their viewership, he'd just be an old news reporter that most people don't remember. For instance, other than political junkies, does anyone know who Germond's former partner is? (Answer: Jules Witcover, who is still writing columns.)

And, further, let me note that political junkies who watch the TV news discussion programs are also quite likely to read about politics as well, and are therefore the kind of informed Americans that Germond should appreciate.

Other than that, Germond is still great. And I agree with his premise: We get the leaders we deserve.

I don't know about you, but I find being reminded of the general madness around me rather refreshing. Jack Germond, veteran of forty some odd years of political reporting, has kept a close eye on the changing landscape of our culture as refracted through our politics. . . so he delivers us this little entertaining ditty. I don't think the book is intended to be expressly comical but my sense is, after having grown up listening to the man on "Inside Washington" (a D.C. area talking heads program) that he wouldn't mind a good laugh over his work.

The man is truly "fed-up" with the decline in journalistic standards that we hear so much about nowadays. He is fed up with the mindless chatter of the political campaigns. He is fed up with what he perceives to be an impoverished national dialogue consisting of politicians speaking to interest groups and not the broader public. He notes that when politicians actually are willing to speak candidly about anything they are immediately the target of vicious criticism in the media and from uncompromising members of their own "base" and are reluctant to speak out again. Sound familiar? But he hardly spares the American public his ire. We are ignorant and wilfully so. We get the politicians we deserve and always have the power to speak up and make ourselves heard. . . but we don't.

Ralph Nader has said many times that if Americans paid nearly as much attention to political and public policy discussions as they do their favorite sports teams we would be a far more literate and involved politic. Maybe so, but one walks away from Germond's work with the sense that there is something natural about our growing apathy. We are moving toward a state of indifference where only fear (or some other extreme emotion) can rouse us from our torpor. This is hinted at in Germond's discussion of the election of 1992. The voters elected Bill Clinton to reform the country and were very concerned about the direction the nation was headed. They paid attention to policy questions on the economy and when they found President Bush lacking in answers, they made it clear that his apparent lassitude on matters of the hearth was intolerable. But when President Clinton faltered (especially over health care reform) they buckled and largely turned away from politics. The Gingrich Revolution was a venting of frustration but Gingrich's antics and questionable moral fiber apparently sealed the coffin on any broad public activism. The 1996 election brought out only about half of all eligible voters and 2000 was worse (48%). We apparently had given up hope that our vote could change much of anything. . . but I ask you. If you are continually told that the government is the source of social problems, that government is the enemy, that government cannot be trusted, wouldn't you end up feeling hopeless? Are Americans really prepared to believe that big business is any better?

So 9/11 rolled around and catastrophe hit and while people were frightened into acting (the 2004 election did indeed have a higher turn out), the public has been very quiet about a long list of apparent and suggested abuses of power by the current Bush administration. Issues of security and fear dogged the 2004 campaign and in the end, it appears, fear won out. (Full disclosure: I voted for Senator Kerry so this is my interpretation of the election and I am tying it in to what I hear Germond saying)

Will we remain this way? Both political parties are heavily influenced by money and in the thrall of their more uncompromising core supporters (and donors). We do have a debased dialogue that seems far more headline driven than motivated by a need (or desire) to be informative. Hopefully this will change but if you believe Germond, and I do, this will only happen if people fundamentally change their attitudes about politics and government and that kind of change comes along once in a very great while.

Four stars. This book is filled with informed observations but it could dig a little deeper into some of the most current concerns such as the way our government continues to attack the media to cover its own tracks. Why is there an ongoing war against public disclosure that threatens our freedom of the press? Why do we stand for it? Why are so many journalists timid in the face of power? Why has the media been so loathe to expose the obvious misinformation campaign by the White House over Iraq? Over Medicare? What does the prosecution of journalists in the Valerie Plame case portend for the future of confidential sources? For an investigative press in general?

Jack Germond has been a reporter for fifty years, and in that time, he has seen it all. "Fat Man Fed Up" is a scathing indictment of the process that has made the American electoral system a shallow and hypocritical exercise. Germond points his finger at an indifferent electorate, the media, and at politicians themselves, who, in his opinion, all share some of the blame for the decline of American politics.

Germond quotes a publisher named Gray who flatly states that "we get about what we deserve" in terms of our elected officials at all levels of government. Many voters are poorly informed about issues, and they are impatient with politicians who discuss the economy or foreign policy in detail. Such voters look for attractive and likeable candidates, and they often reject more qualified individuals who are less charismatic. Almost half of all Americans do not bother to vote at all. How then can we complain when so many mediocre individuals are elected to represent us?

Germond skewers the print and broadcast media, who pounce on every peccadillo and scandal in a politician's background, but who fail to balance things by giving thoughtful coverage to the important issues of the day. Small wonder that so many voters throw up their hands in despair when they consider their options. After all, they think, aren't all politicians lying crooks? If we believe what we read in the papers and see on television, we might think that there are no honest elected officials working hard day after day to make our country a better place.

In addition, Germond decries the state of campaigning in this country. We live in an age when sound bites and the political attack ad rule the airwaves, and candidates' handlers heavily guard them lest they make a political gaffe that will end their chances. The result is that the voters have little or no opportunity to get to know the candidates, and many voters end up casting their ballots for an image rather than for a person. Germond also reserves plenty of invective for meaningless political conventions, right-wing talk shows, misleading polls, and politicians who misrepresent themselves and spend tremendous amounts of money to buy an electoral victory.

Some readers will be turned off by Germond's brutal honesty and salty language. He makes no effort to sugarcoat his criticism of politicians who have failed to distinguish themselves as candidates or as elected officials. Nor does he hold back in his harsh appraisal of the media and the public. However, whether you agree with him or not, Germond's comments are timely, literate, and informative.

Germond fails to wrap things up with a chapter listing facile solutions that will get American politics back on track quickly. In fact, he doubts that any easy solutions exist. However, the first step to addressing a problem is to admit that it exists. If enough people read Germond's book, it is possible that we will start to think about ways to bring American politics back to life.

I see myself as conservative but I am very impressed with what I read. I admire him for being critical of both sides and the media( in which he worked for so long). It might help if all the primaries were held on one day and very early on so the public might think more. It ultimately would help if all of us(including myself) would put more thought into who we vote for and when we see some silly "getcha-getcha-gotcha" story in the press (of EITHER a democrat or republican) then we can turn that off and only watch and read those media sources that give in-depth coverage such as the lehrer hour on PBS.

Germond is concerned that the political process, especially in national elections, has become increasingly dysfunctional over the last forty years with the result that marginal candidates (empty suits) are elected. The book is not really a scathing indictment of the process or of individuals. Through the use of personal experiences as a political reporter, the author gently criticizes the trends and results of the political process.

The author identifies nothing that would be a surprise to anyone with even a minimal interest in politics: mindless and informationless campaigns; the ascendancy of television and visuals; nitpicking and "gothcha" journalism; empty and evasive notions of objectivity and fairness; ill-conceived and distorting polling; etc. What is unique about the book is the author's ability to flesh out these developments with personal anecdotes. He bemoans the fact that journalists and politicians, as a rule, no longer can have close relationships. Without the element of trust, it becomes less likely that a reporter can penetrate campaign propaganda. Voters are hardly given a free pass; ultimately it is they who must make the process work.

With the exception of a concern, briefly mentioned, of the importance of money in political campaigns, the author has little to say about the growing dominance of corporate and financial interests in the country as a whole and in the political process. One would have expected, especially since the author is a liberal, some comment on the rise of such issues as free trade, outsourcing, privatization, deregulation, the massive decline of labor, tax cut mania, etc and their minimal and inept questioning by the media and lack of salience in elections. He does decry the rise of the religious right and its role in the installation of a patently unqualified individual in the White House.

The Fat Man is fed up, it seems, mostly because of the loss of collegiality and standards of conduct among political operatives of all kinds. However, there are millions of people in this country way more fed up than the author with the rightward, fundamentalist, pro-business turn in economic and political affairs that threaten to undermine the American way of life that has been carefully fought for and constructed over many decades. The author is not optimistic that a remedy is at hand, as it likewise undoubtedly seems to the many others disgusted with the path that the country is following.