Tim Russert, RIP

I think Matt's remarks on the passing of Tim Russert strike the right balance between respect for the man's achievements and honesty about what Matt - and many others - viewed as the weaknesses of the Russert interviewing style. But I'd take a little issue with this comment:

The blue-collar persona was, in many respects, a bizarre posture for a multi-millionaire television celebrity.

This is something you hear a great deal from contemporary liberals, whether the "ordinary Joe" affect in question belongs to Russert or George W. Bush, Bill O'Reilly or Lou Dobbs. And obviously there can be something unpleasant about this sort of persona, particularly when it's wedded to a chip-on-your-shoulder, bullying sensibility, and particularly when it requires what Mike Kinsley memorably described as "downward social climbing." But there's also something unpleasant about the insistence that rich Americans - especially self-made rich Americans - don't have the right to stay true to their blue-collar roots, and that public figures who like to talk about their Rust Belt hometowns and their working-class Dads and their favorite sports teams are somehow all frauds and phonies and reverse-poseurs. (Thus Paul Waldman: "That Russert no doubt actually prefers the Bills to other teams makes it no less of an affectation." Really?) A blue-collar persona on an inside-the-Beltway anchor can be fake and deeply irritating, but it doesn't have to be: To wax Laschian, or Kausian, there's a lot to be said for refusing to let your paycheck (and yes, your summer home) stand in the way of your sense of social equality, and your commitment to giving blue-collar America a voice in a white-collar town. I had my problems with the Russert style of interviewing as well, but it's hard to see how he would have been a better anchor if he hadn't self-consciously tried to ask questions that he thought his Dad's friends back in upstate New York would want the powerful to answer. Maybe he didn't live up to the role he assigned himself - Buffalo's man in Washington - but his viewers, and American democracy, are better off because he tried.

Comments

You are probably right that Russert kept his blue collar roots and remained so even though becoming incredibly wealthy. Its a difficult task if Russert did indeed accomplish such and his father in Buffalo probably had a help in anchoring him upon his success.

Please dont group Chris Mathews in as similar situation as you did with your link however. Mathews just like the way it sounds to still be "blue collar", just like he likes the sound of his own voice much to much.

Lets all pray for Tim. Then lets pray that Mathews does not take Russerts place and turn Meet the Press into a series of self indulgent political cliches.

Posted by Tom | June 16, 2008 8:42 AM

Well said, Ross. It's hard to understand what people want here. If a genuinely blue collar kid makes it through the ranks then, of course, they are going to make lots of money and be, by definition, upper class. But it's the sensibility that we want. Even if the person struggles to stay true to it, it's the effort and empathy that we need, if not the actual authenticity. The only other option would be to arbitrarily pluck some broke guy out of obscurity and give him a huge show and hope for the best and then fire him after the money goes to his head.

And I agree with Tom, Mathews would be a catastrophe. Brian Lamb, anyone?

Posted by Derek Sutton | June 16, 2008 8:47 AM

Yeah, but

If an interviewer forgets to bring up Buffalo, Russert surely will. Asked by Kurtz how he avoids getting an inflated ego when he spends time interviewing presidents (a softball question designed just for Russert; try to imagine Kurtz asking the same thing of Tom Brokaw), Russert responded, "If you come from Buffalo, everything else is easy. Walking backwards to school, for a mile in the snow, grounds you for life." When Bill Moyers asked Russert whether he relied too much on the word of Bush administration officials during the run-up to the Iraq War, Russert replied, "Look, I'm a blue-collar guy from Buffalo. I know who my sources are. I work 'em very hard. It's the mid-level people that tell you the truth." Any questions about his being too close to the establishment are met with "Blue-collar! Buffalo!", brandished like a cross before the vampire of accountability. Russert may be the only journalist in America who considers all his conversations with government officials off the record unless they request otherwise -- an extraordinary gift to the powerful and an inversion of ordinary journalistic practice -- but that doesn't make him an insider. Because he's from Buffalo.

Anyone who saw the Moyers interview knows how stick-your-finger-down-your-throat-a-la-Joan-Rivers Russert's response was.

Jeffrey Frank's lead character in the good "The Columnist" was largely based on George F. Will (easy pickins, yeah, but few deserve that treatment more), but the guy was from Buffalo. Hmm...

Posted by ed | June 16, 2008 9:00 AM

I agree - one of the annoying things that the left seems to harp on is that just because some people who originated from blue collar backgrounds end up being snobbish, that this must be secretly true of them all. I definately do not believe this, and think that Tim Russert really did love Buffalo, and was amazed at the station he achieved. I don't think he ever thought of himself as a creature OF Washington, but more as a creature LIVING in Washington. We need more of the latter these days, and losing Russert is a reminder that we should cherish those who never lose a sense of where they came from.

Posted by B. Minich | June 16, 2008 9:08 AM

But there's also something unpleasant about the insistence that rich Americans - especially self-made rich Americans - don't have the right to stay true to their blue-collar roots, and that public figures who like to talk about their Rust Belt hometowns and their working-class Dads and their favorite sports teams are somehow all frauds and phonies and reverse-poseurs.

I think you've misstated the point you're arguing against.

Obviously Russert "has the right to stay true to his blue-collar roots."

What Russert does not have the right to do is promote himself as the voice of lower- and middle-class America, when he is not that. "Staying true" to your roots requires acknowledging who you are and how's that necessarily different from where you came.

Further, this critique of Russert goes hand-in-hand with the policy critique - what animated Russert were not issues that animate everyday Americans, but the issues of the Washington elite, from social security reform to campaign finance. There was one acceptable economic viewpoint on his show - all neoliberalism, all the time.

Posted by DivGuy | June 16, 2008 9:15 AM

What ed said. Sure, he genuinely liked the Bills, and with some justification considered himself a man of the people, but he fell back on being from Buffalo as his trump card.

I sure hope that Russert was "the only journalist in America who considers all his conversations with government officials off the record unless they request otherwise," but I kind of doubt it.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | June 16, 2008 9:23 AM

OK. How many of you folks complaining about Russert are in love with John Edwards? And how many of you defending him mocked Edwards for his "son of the millworker" rap?

Just curious about which dynamic is at work here in the thread -- real disdain/support, or the mere partisan kind?

Posted by Appalled Moderate | June 16, 2008 9:31 AM

Appalled Moderate--

Russert really did say, "I just wish someone had called." Also, Edwards was attacked by the Right Wing Noise Machine for not keeping it real (and dude, the guy was running for Prez), when was Russert ever attacked? He's the one who brought it up first.

Also, I don't think you're really a "Moderate." I think you voted for Bunnypants (Bush, Jr.) twice, which is quite the opposite. Now who's appalled?

Posted by ed | June 16, 2008 9:38 AM

ed:

To my everlasting shame, I voted for W the first time. (I'm not from Forida, so don't get too upset.) I knew better on round two.

But you didn't answer my question. Or was it -- because Edwards was attacked by right-wingers, you are ok with his "son of a millworker" wealthy-man's populism?

Posted by Appalled Moderate | June 16, 2008 9:49 AM

"Appalled Moderate" (a la Kathleen Parker, one presumes?):

Shame on you.

I don't have a real stake in Edwards' schtick, but find somewhat more forgivable since he was attacked (Breck Girl comes to mind) and he was running for Prez, which incurs all sorts of that kind of bulljive. I'm pretty sure that's what I said the first time.

Posted by ed | June 16, 2008 10:17 AM

DivGuy's point is interesting. Before this thread degrades into silly name calling and posturing, does anyone have any thoughts on what Russerts real hot button issues were.

Was he giving voice to things people in Buffalo and other midwest places would care about (like how can you jumpstart an economy that has not found its feet since the fall of US manufacturing; how do they stop draining resources and best use the existing resources of the area, cheap power, endless water, educated youth; how do they get a smart Albany and Federal tax policy that can work for cities like Buffalo too)?

Or was he indeed, although true to his blue collar roots as a person, speaking from his earned position mostly or all about national issues and concerns like social security reform and national security? I did not watch him enough to know if DivGuy is indeed on the mark here.

Posted by Tom | June 16, 2008 10:39 AM

Ross is on point with how this breaks down politically.

Liberals should take a lesson from conservatives, who go out of their way to praise guys like John Edwards. People who come from meager beginnings and achieve great success, without forgetting where they came from.

The left just doesn't get it.

Ok, ok, sarcasm aside, I mostly agree. But it's silly to put a liberal or conservative tag on this kind of thing.

Posted by Alex | June 16, 2008 11:17 AM

To me, what was grating about Russert's shtick was the sentimentality and self-referential quality. Like the time he put Big Russ on the set the morning of one of the Bills’ Super Bowls collapses and pleaded with Jim Kelly et. al. to win one for the old man. And then there’s a dash of righteousness thrown in (“If you come from Buffalo, everything else is easy. Walking backwards to school, for a mile in the snow, grounds you for life.”) He walked to school backwards? Is there some context missing there?

Maybe Waldman was too ungenerous in calling it an “affectation”, but there was a certainly a brand-cultivation element to it that was occasionally creepy and almost always boring. There’s something to be said for modesty.

And I think what frustrated Waldman, Yglesias and other “contemporary liberals” about Russert was that working-class cred didn’t stop him from adopting all the tics and tropes of establishment Washington political coverage.

And speaking of self-referential, can I be churlish enough to suggest that NBC’s coverage of Russert’s death has been over-the-top? Interrupting network programming mid-afternoon (as if soap opera viewers were the Russert demographic)? Devoting all 30 minutes of the Nightly News to Russert? Followed by another tribute – an hour long, I believe – in prime time? (I felt the same way about ABC’s coverage of the severe, but not fatal, wounding in Iraq of one of their correspondents a few years ago).

I can’t think of an apt example, but if a similarly accomplished figure in the world of, say, finance passed suddenly, how would NBC have treated it? I guess it’s hard to analogize. TV people, regardless of their accomplishments, are uniquely famous simply by virtue of…being on TV.

I really can’t speak to Tim Russert’s character. I don’t really have any reason to doubt that his NBC colleagues’ affection for him was genuine. And I’m sure the relationship with his son, while also oversold, is as close as everyone says (Young Luke acquitted himself very nicely on the Today Show this AM). OTOH, I’ve heard that Russert could be a ruthless and almost cruel colleague and boss.

I guess what I object to more than anything is the way that death (of anyone, but famous people especially) inspires selective memory and even hypocrisy. It just can’t be that everyone who dies is a super-mensch. When I go, I certainly hope they don’t focus on the weaknesses in my character, but I really don’t want my virtues overstated either.

Sorry to be long-winded.

Posted by Bart Acocella | June 16, 2008 11:26 AM

Tom:

I think there is a real question of relevance on this. Russert's job was to ask politicians question in a sufficiently entertaining way that people watched his shows, and the folks at ADM and IBM and the other advertisers felt they were getting their money's worth. "Buffalo" was likely part of the entertainment value that keep people coming back. I'm not sure it meant more than that. And, really, someone from New Mexico or Georgia would probably be irritated if the substantive questions from Russert, each time, had a specific regional tilt.

Frankly, journalists on interview shows are not well-placed to ask the politically charged questions so many seem to wish. As a class, many of them went to Ivy League schools, attend the same parties, and have that economically conservative, socially liberal worldview that is very entertaining to someone who makes lots of money and wants to keep it. One learns more from interviews by the likes of Brian Lamb, who makes the politicians talk and explain, than one ever learned from the Russerts of the word, who was content merely to let politicians squirm.

Who should be entrusted with politically charged questions? probably politicians. Despite their social standing and the oiliness of the profession, it is their job and job security to know what the people want and care about. For that reason, McCain's question time proposal is one (of a very few) thing that interests me about his candidacy.

Posted by Appalled Moderate | June 16, 2008 11:30 AM

Bart

I think TR was a pretty bad interviewer and the constant reminding of Buffalo annoying.

But to answer your question; If you grew up anywhere cold you know that when the wind is blowing you walk with your back to the wind (kids will walk backward, I don;t do it anymore)

Posted by rob | June 16, 2008 11:33 AM

"He walked to school backwards? Is there some context missing there?"

When you are in second grade and the snow is blowing at 15mph or greater, you walk backwards.

Posted by mickslam | June 16, 2008 11:34 AM

Ah.

I actually grew up in "downstate New York", a quaint little hamlet with salt-of-the-earth virtues called Manhattan. So it got cold, yes, though not Buffalo cold. Cold enough that I occasionally turned my back to the wind. I wasn't thinking broadly enough about what "walking backards" meant.

Posted by Bart Acocella | June 16, 2008 11:47 AM

"This is something you hear a great deal from contemporary liberals, whether the "ordinary Joe" affect in question belongs to Russert or George W. Bush, Bill O'Reilly or Lou Dobbs."

Whatever Russert, Dobbs, or O'Reilly became, they were once what could legitimately be called "blue-collar." This is not the case for George W. Bush. The man was the scion of a political dynasty who failed at every business venture he undertook only to be bailed out by his wealthy relatives. He was allergic to any sort of real responsibility (as demonstrated by his National Guard Service, if you could call it that). Much more Dauphin than Dale Jr.

The problem "contemporary liberals" like myself have with the president's "blue collar" appeal has nothing to do with any real or perceived differences between left wing and "traditional" values and more to do with the fact that Bush's everyman appeal was a naked fabrication by the most inside of DC insiders and the media cheerily went along with the charade.

Posted by Apsaras | June 16, 2008 11:49 AM

Second mention of the 'summer house' in three days.

Who knew 'hathos' was actually Latin for envy.

Oh, and priceless that you somehow equate Lasch and Kaus at the same level.

Posted by Douthat the Hack | June 16, 2008 12:03 PM

I find it amusing to listen to some people, who obviously have no idea about what blue-collar America is like, talk about staying true to it.

As I recall from my blue collar upbringing, this was a tribal world, divided into an us and a them. One's blue collar roots derived from non-elective affinities such as religion, ethnicity, and generations of shared experiences. To place your own success and advancement over those ties, and leave the old neighborhood and life, was to turn your back on your roots and become one of "them."

How, or even if, you can then be true to those roots again is no simple matter. So too is whether you would even really (sincerely) want to -- I couldn't wait to leave a neighborhood that in many ways seemed like a medieval Italian village and finally cross over to the new world.

Whatever the case may be, I'm sure it takes a little bit more than simply being a "homer" in politics or sports, or wearing a chip on top of your Brooks Brothers suit.

Posted by riley | June 16, 2008 12:11 PM

Hold up a minute; Buffalo is a pretty big place. You mean to tell me that they don't have buses in Buffalo, that he was "walking to school" and not "walking 2 blocks to the bus stop"? Sorry, I know he's dead and all, but my bullshit-o-meter just went off.

And as far as "blue collar credibility" goes, isn't it ironic that two East Coast Ivy league elites are arguing about that subject? As if they were sociologists studying the habits of some distant tribe in Borneo.

Posted by freddiemac | June 16, 2008 12:19 PM

You mean to tell me that they don't have buses in Buffalo, that he was "walking to school" and not "walking 2 blocks to the bus stop"?

When Russert was a kid, they might not have. My own father, who is a few years older than Russert, grew up in Pittsburgh. Strange as it sounds now, he used to hitch-hike to and from his high school because there were no buses and sixteen miles was too far to walk. Buffalo's roughly the same size as Pittsburgh.

Posted by Shinyk | June 16, 2008 12:56 PM

Could you imagine if Gwenn Iffil or Juan Williams started referring to brothers on the block as the final abriter of political wisdom. If black journlaists were given the same freedom to back up pretty much everything by going about their roots, it would look like the Black Bush sketch from Chappell show but if you happen to be an Irish or Italian Catholic it's considered charming.

Posted by am | June 16, 2008 1:18 PM

Could you imagine if Gwenn Iffil or Juan Williams started referring to brothers on the block as the final abriter of political wisdom. If black journlaists were given the same freedom to back up pretty much everything by going about their roots, it would look like the Black Bush sketch from Chappell show but if you happen to be an Irish or Italian Catholic it's considered charming.

Posted by am | June 16, 2008 1:20 PM

The TR or mainstream media stereotype of a blue collar guy is some hard working, beer drinking, salt of the earth guy who just wants a solid dollar for a solid day's work and for his beloved Bills to finally win it all. He's a far cry from the guy in the neighborhood bar who doesn't want anyone with skin a shade darker than his looking at his daughter and whose idea of a blue collar work ethic is a patronage ghost-payroll job.

So, what about loutishness, thuggishness, chauvanism, racism, self-satisfied ignorance, and fondness for class-, race-, sex-, religion-, and ethnic-based sterotypes.

If ivy league liberals can indulge in these fond pastimes, why won't they allow them to their old blue collar forebears?

Posted by joe | June 16, 2008 1:39 PM

"Maybe he didn't live up to the role he assigned himself - Buffalo's man in Washington - but his viewers, and American democracy, are better off because he tried."

Really? What sort of calculus did you use to come up with that conclusion? And are we going to have to read the same sort of overripe tripe if Joe Klein dies next?

Russert may well have been a nice guy - but he improved American democracy? Come on.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 16, 2008 1:42 PM

there's a difference between these groups

1) blue collar person who stays blue collar
2) blue collar person who becomes middle class
3) blue collar person who becomes upper class
4) middle class person who stays middle class
5) middle class person who becomes blue collar

etc. etc.

i think there is a qualitative difference in the outlooks of someone who raised in a struggling family and one who was raised in a comfortable family. john edwards might have been a rich lawyer, but i do think he has a point that he understood in a very visceral fashion the struggles of "ordinary" americans; he knows whereof he speaks. that doesn't mean that the fact that he is wealthy is irrelevant or does not mitigate his argument from experience (as someone who gets a large pay raise can tell you you get used to the extra money soon enough). but i think it's an important and non-trivial point.

Posted by razib | June 16, 2008 1:43 PM

Why should a journalist privilege the parochial concerns of those people with whom he happens to have family or community ties? In addition to the policy-coverage complaints, it seems fair to wonder why the concerns of a broad cross-section of voters shouldn’t receive attention. I don’t know how much influence the Buffalo connection exerted on Russert’s practice of questioning. But it shouldn’t be granted some sort of arbitrary moral authority, which would merely substitute one kind of elitism for another.

Posted by jason | June 16, 2008 2:18 PM

@Appalled Moderate: See DivGuy's post - using one's blue-collar roots as a means to open a conversation about poverty is quite different from using one's blue-collar roots as a means to close down conversation about one's actions.

As was the case with the Moyers interview, Russert fell back on this cliche, even when it ventured into absurd, non-sequitur territory.

Posted by really? | June 16, 2008 3:34 PM

Tim Russert proved to be a fine son, father, and husband, and Bills fan due to traditional loyalties, especially that of the Catholic Church.

Let's not kid ourselves about his success as a media pundit. Some of it came from his public personal charm, though most of it from his skill at cross examination learned at law school. He was a tough match for most of the political class.

In a typical Russert interview one learned something about the cast of political characters involved but little of any analytical depth of the issues involved.

His affectation of being a simple Buffalo guy was straw compared to the seduction of the hathetic seductions of our celebrity culture.

Tim Russert, requiscat in pace.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | June 16, 2008 4:36 PM

I just want to echo the first comment-- NBC, PLEASE DO NOT PUT CHRIS MATTHEWS IN TIM'S MTP SPOT!!!! Really, there's no one who can fill his shoes, largely because of his personality and background, so don't even bother trying-- in fact, I recommend changing the name and the format completely, the equivalent of retiring an athlete's number. Have a couple of moderators, at least until you find a new talent in a few years, with his or her own personality and charm. I'm one of those who really looked forward to Sunday mornings, to seeing who was on Russert. Long ago, I stopped calling it "Meet the Press"-- it became "Russert," and I will never watch it again unless it becomes a whole new kind of program because I can't stand the idea of looking at that set without him in that chair. I know that he would prefer that the program continue as is-- he viewed it as an institution, much bigger than himself. But the show will need fresh talent and a newbie would have to be cultivated, it would take time. It's a very daunting task for anybody.

Posted by MD | June 16, 2008 5:29 PM

The man was the scion of a political dynasty who failed at every business venture he undertook

The President's oil exploration firm, Arbusto, was an unsuccessful business, as are most new businesses; not his other employments.

Posted by Art Deco | June 16, 2008 5:52 PM

Art Deco,

That is such a huge fucking lie that it's not even worth the effort to rebut. How can you be quite so shameless.

Posted by Douthat the Hack | June 16, 2008 6:20 PM

W, self-made, with "blue-collar roots"? What is Ross smoking?

Posted by Mike | June 17, 2008 2:48 AM

Russert's interviewing "style" can be compared to the ending of a great book...you're left wanting more, but when you've had a chance to think about it, you realize you had received just enough.

Russert said many times he was trying to establish a kind of historical "record" that the public, extended press, and future historians could use as reference.

This is precisely the kind of interviewing "style" eligible for critiscm from the intellectual left and right, which probably indicates Russert was onto something. He left room for critiscm, but not much.

While Russert didn't cover "everything" (Matt thinks so) I personally thought Russert was one of the few reliable sources of real let-me-decide type news.

My family will miss him.

Posted by AKBY | June 17, 2008 2:33 PM

what a tool douthat is. of course, it is liberals who are always the ones who are heaping scorn on the blue-collar roots of those who are now members of the establishment. this is nothing that conservatives would EVER do ... you know, ridicule john edwards or, even, to an extent, barack obama, because, you know, everyone knows how elitist those faux blue collar dems really are.

this is what is annoying about douthat. he positions himself as some kind of rational, non-partisan right-winger, but, what do you know, he always finds some way to bash liberals and dems.

and it is a good point that russert actually represented washington establishment views and attitudes far closer than anything else. so, in his case, it is a point worth making. note that no one says that he is a fraud because of how big or nicely lit his house may be.

Posted by logicat | June 18, 2008 4:21 AM