I just finished reading an awful OpenLeft piece that I can’t recommend about how Obama is “extending the hegemonic continuity of Nixon-Reagan Era”. I got sucked into because it seemed to suggest that the Democratic wave in 2006 (and on in to 2008) was caused largely by the change in political narrative caused by Hurricane Katrina: “Katrina disaster finally punctured the bubble of Versailles ass-covering for conservative failures”. I agree with this description of the change insofar as it describes the media.
Right after that, I read this, from Dan Balz:
In politics today, the narrative is king.
Presumably, he means that political results are driven by narratives.
Do you think that this is true? Do these crazy media narratives have big impacts on actual elections? Or are they just ways Politico and Mark Halperin to attract readers? In particular, did Katrina really have a huge impact on the 2006 and 2008 elections by changing media coverage? I’m not so sure it did — Bush’s approval rating was already pretty low, mostly because of Iraq. But it certainly had some effect.