Reader question:
Please explain "political hack", as in "He's a political hack."
My comments:
First of all, a political hack is a politician, a pro, usually an old hand who has done a lot of the dull, perhaps dirty but by and large rather uninteresting stuff in order to advance the interests of their political party.
Now, have you ever heard of a journalist being described as a hack?
Being a journalist myself, I would like to explain what a journalistic hack does by way of comparison.
A regular journalistic hack, for example, is someone who writes a summary of the daily world news for the domestic audience. The domestic audience, you see, are more interested in national politics. Those who are interested in international affairs will, of course, read world news on the international pages. So for the domestic page, a brief summary of what's going on internationally will do. Nothing in depth or substantial, nothing imaginative or creative, just a bland dose will do.
Because of this, as you can imagine, the job is usually not assigned to the best and brightest staff, but to someone who is able enough to tell a rudimentary story, or a summary of a story at any rate.
And since this is a daily routine, you can also imagine that our hack is familiar with the process through and through and is able to churn out the said summary without any trouble, sometimes without even bother. The writer may be able to do the job with eyes half closed.
It is, in short, humdrum and wholly unimaginative work. The job itself is sometimes called a hack job, hack as in hacking away in the manner of someone carelessly cutting wood, cutting it aimlessly, irregularly, inexpertly.
Why does anyone want to do this kind of work, you ask?
Well, it pays.
And for your information, there are always people who take on that kind of a job. After all, one works for hire.
Besides, somebody has to do it, as they say.
Well, that's it. The journalistic hack is someone who works for hire, rather than interest or for any other objective.
The political hack, in comparison, does things in similar fashion. This is someone who is a piece of machine, a tool for the party of which he is a member.
A piece of machine, a tool of the political apparatus rather than, say, a public-minded, inspiring statesman.
Unlike the latter, which is a positive term to describe any politician, "political hack" reeks of all sorts of derogative connotations.
That's the only point I want to make. Now, let's read some media examples to get a fuller idea of who political hacks are, or are not:
1. President Donald Trump should let Special Counsel Robert Mueller finish his investigation into Russia's engagement with the Trump campaign. Truncating Mueller's work at this point gives Democrats a powerful corruption narrative heading into the 2018 midterms.
To be clear, Democrats will use allegations of corruption as a campaign tool in midterm elections regardless of Trump's decision regarding Mueller. Their base will love it, and Trump voters will largely ignore it. That's the simple reality of our polarized political environment. At this point, criminal allegations about Trump are largely speculative.
Firing Mueller would be a game changer.
Democrats gain instant credibility on the corruption front and a blank slate to imagine it. They'll claim that Trump fired Mueller because of what the investigation discovered and explain that we may never know how bad it is as long as Republicans are in charge. In politics, perception is everything, and the optics of firing Mueller couldn't be worse.
Trump might attempt to stem political backlash by suggesting that Mueller is on a political witch-hunt, but that's unlikely to hold much water.
Mueller is a George W. Bush appointee that Barack Obama retained during his administration. He is so widely respected by both Democrats and Republicans that Congress created a special two-year term to allow his continued service beyond the 10-year term limit imposed on FBI directors.
Moreover, Rod Rosenstein, a Republican-nominated Deputy Attorney General who worked on the Whitewater investigation into President Bill Clinton, appointed Mueller as special counsel.
That's hardly the profile of a political hack.
Other typical attacks against special counsels in the past--broad investigatory focus, lack of accountability, and budgetary uncertainty--don't jump out as ironclad reasons to fire Mueller either.
In short, the political consequences for firing Mueller would be significant. If Trump hasn't committed any crimes, he's paying a premium to end an investigation that won't find much of anything.
- Democrats win if Trump fires Special Counsel Robert Mueller, AL.com, January 30, 2019.
2. Joseph Maguire, the acting director of National Intelligence, faced scrutiny Thursday from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle as he testified before the House Intelligence Committee.
Maguire discussed his reasoning for initially blocking a whistleblower complaint's transmission to members of Congress. The complaint centered on a call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in which Trump urged his counterpart to investigate Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden over Biden's son's connections to a Ukrainian gas company.
Reports of the complaint prompted House Democrats to open an impeachment inquiry against Trump.
During his testimony, Maguire said he delayed passing along the complaint to Congress because of executive privilege to protect communications with the president. Maguire said that because presidential communications are confidential due to executive privilege, he couldn't immediately pass along the complaint to Congress.
"The White House did not direct me to withhold the complaint," Maguire said.
The complaint was released Thursday ahead of Maguire's hearing. Maguire said that because the White House had released the memo of the call between Trump and Zelensky, the complaint no longer fell under executive privilege and therefore could be released to Congress.
Here are the top moments from Maguire's testimony:
Rep. Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, questioned Maguire on whether the complaint mentioned "serious wrongdoing by the president of the United States."
"Yes, that this is the subject of the allegation of the complaint," Maguire replied. He added: "I am not authorized as the director of National Intelligence to provide material that has executive privilege."
Schiff asked why Maguire went first to the White House and then to the Justice Department for advice on how to handle the complaint, despite Trump and Attorney General William Barr being subjects of the complaint.
"I believe everything involved in this matter is totally unprecedented," Maguire said.
Schiff asked whether Maguire discussed the whistleblower complaint with Trump, but he declined to say.
"I will not divulge privileged conversations that I have as the director of National Intelligence with the president of the United States," Maguire said.
Schiff also pressed Maguire on whether he thought the whistleblower is a "political hack," quoting name-calling from Trump.
Trump last week derided the whistleblower as a "political hack" and said his communication with a foreign leader is a "ridiculous story."
"You don’t believe the whistleblower is a political hack, do you director," Schiff said.
"I believe the whistle-blower is operating in good faith," he said, adding the whistleblower "has followed the law.”
- Top moments from acting DNI Joseph Maguire's testimony about the Trump whistleblower complaint, USAToday.com, September 27, 2019.
3. Sen. Bernie Sanders is pushing back against Democrats who are sounding the alarm about nominating a socialist.
While Sen. Amy Klobuchar was the only other presidential candidate on the debate stage last week that admitted she was afraid of having a Democratic socialist in the White House, arguing that Democrats need to nominate someone who can bring people together, others, including former Bill Clinton adviser James Carville, have been much more blunt, saying he was “scared to death” of the prospect.
"There's a certain part of the Democratic party that wants us to be a cult. I'm not interested in being in a cult," Carville said recently on MSNBC’s 'Morning Joe.' "Some people in this country want a revolution. They want disruption. They scream at people and bully people. And I don't know how you win an election: 78 years old, screaming in a microphone about the revolution but you gotta give people an alternative."
He said if Democrats become like the British Labor Party and nominate a figure like Jeremy Corbyn, “it’s going to be the end of days.”
Given an opportunity to respond to those comments on CNN, Sanders said Carville is a "political hack" who is an example of the establishment Democrats he is up against.
"Look, James, in all due respect, is a political hack who said very terrible things when he was working for Clinton against Barack Obama. I think he said some of the same things," Sanders said. "We are taking on the establishment. This is no secret to anybody."
- Sanders Blasts Carville as a 'Political Hack' After Critical Remarks, Townhall.com, February 13, 2020.
About the author:
Zhang Xin is Trainer at chinadaily.com.cn. He has been with China Daily since 1988, when he graduated from Beijing Foreign Studies University. Write him at: zhangxin@chinadaily.com.cn, or raise a question for potential use in a future column.