Dirty Laundry
Politicians have to answer questions for the media all the time. It’s a symbiotic relationship. The media wants to know what politicians think, especially if they say something that will generate headlines. In the end, the media needs readers or viewers. Like the “algorithms” that drive social media, the more outrageous the statement, the more the media meets their needs. It’s a matter of their survival.
Politicians need the media, because, they need votes to stay in power. There are lots of ways to contact voters, to let them know ideas and views. But many of those methods are expensive, especially broadcast media. So if a politician can get “free time”, it has actual cash value. (Like him or not, Donald Trump is a master for getting “free time”. He did it from the beginning in 2015, and continues to dominate the media landscape today. The saying goes, “He takes all of the oxygen out of the room”. Trump can dominate so effectively, that there is little time left for anyone else).
The Premise
So here’s the “formula”. The media asks questions to generate headlines. The politicians want answers that will generate headlines. The key is, that the politicians want headlines that are beneficial to their efforts, “good” headlines, while the media really doesn’t care. Their view, as the Don Henley song goes: “Give us dirty laundry”.
Somewhere behind a politician is an “operative”, a political strategist who helps him or her advance. Before every encounter with the media, that “operative” (either apocryphally or physically) whispers in the politicians ear: “Don’t accept the premise of the question”. Many media questions are in black and white terms, even on issues that aren’t black and white at all. The “over-simplification” of the question is designed to elicit a simple, headline generating answer.
But if the answer is somewhere in the middle, even if the question doesn’t allow it; the politician needs to get “political”. They need to rephrase the question in a way so that their answer addresses the complexity of the problem. They can’t accept the premise.
Rahm
Rahm Emanuel is the former Democratic Mayor of Chicago and US Ambassador to Japan. But before his political career as a candidate, Emanuel was an “operative” himself, leading candidates to success, including serving as Barack Obama’s Chief of Staff in the White House. He’s now thinking of running for President in the 2028 Democratic Primaries, and is trying to get “his headlines” by appearing on right-wing media. (Other possible candidates, like Gavin Newsom and Pete Buttigieg, are doing the same). Emanuel is known for his abrasiveness, and also his political acuity. So when he appeared on Megan Kelly’s show a few weeks ago, it’s not likely that he accidently accepted the premise of this question.
“Can a man become a woman?” Kelly asked Emanuel.
“Can a man become a woman? Not — no,” the former Chicago mayor and Obama chief of staff replied.
“Thank you,” Kelly responded. (The Hill).
He accepted the premise of the question. He looked at gender identity, a huge range of possibilities, and saw it only as black and white. And he did it intentionally, to get the headline, and to put himself “apart” from most of the Democratic field.
The Answer
The answer could have reflected the reality of trans-genderism. There are different measures of “man” and “woman”, besides just physical equipment. “Brain identity” can and is more important than visual appearance. And science recognizes multiple combinations of DNA and pre-birth changes that might have one physical result, but another “brain identity”.
The answer should have been that a man doesn’t become a woman, but a person who has one set of physical characteristics might have other unseen changes that means they are a different gender. Rahm could have taken his opportunity to explain all this to the MAGA world, and spoken “truth to power”.
But he didn’t. He wanted the headline. He’s looking for “his place” in a Democratic Primary, the candidate in the center of the political spectrum. His answer got the “lead”, and a thank you from Megan Kelly, as if Rahm acknowledged a “truth” that only MAGA-world really knows.
The Operative
I’m sure there’s a political operative behind Emanuel who did a “high five” for the answer. Democrats were “burned” by the MAGA anti-transgendered campaign in 2024. It certainly took Sherrod Brown down here in Ohio. And some operatives have made a calculation: Democrats must step away from “gender issues”, and stop supporting “trans” and other LGBTQ rights. It’s kind of a, “Let’s ‘pretend’ we don’t support LGBTQ, so we can get back in power,” thing. Instead of educating, and recognizing the real complexity of human gender and sexuality; some Democrats are “accepting the premise” of MAGA gender identity. It’s simple and headline generating, even if it’s wrong.
Rahm could have said: “No a man can’t become a woman – unless she already is”. That would have gotten him just as many headlines.
And there’s one more advantage – it would be right.
