@LizMair invokes the power of the Fishbowl.

The Fishbowl is what I call an artifact of what Neal Stephenson called the Age of Scrutiny: basically, it’s the world that we live in now. Which is a world where you have to simply assume that somebody is now, or will be, watching everything that you’re doing. It’s a perilous world, to be sure: but at least you’re never alone, right? Anyway, here’s Liz explaining how life sucks for politicians now:

It was, to put it mildly, not helpful in the 2004 election for a candidate (Kerry) to have taken multiple different positions on matters concerning the Iraq War. It was not okay in the 2008 cycle to suddenly play the civil libertarian after contrary votes, to position as somehow anti-Iraq War when you voted for it and wouldn’t apologize (see Clinton, Hillary). It was not tenable to claim to be a hardcore social conservative after prior pro-gay positioning and pro-choice status, nor to claim anti-comprehensive immigration reform credentials that did not previously exist (see Romney, Willard Mitt). It certainly isn’t going to be credible or plausible for any candidates this cycle to attempt equivalent contortionism while simultaneously pretending to be oh-so-sincere this time around. Yet we already see them doing it, and doing it badly.

…Admittedly, this means endless work to people like me – and Liz! – so perhaps I’m not being disinterested by being sanguine. But, certainly, there’s no help for it. We live in a world that is getting better and better at looking at itself. Our politicians are going to have to learn how to stand up better under that terrible, merciless scrutiny.

Or not. I mean, keep in mind that the Right has an inherent structural advantage in this regard: the Media hates us and wants us all to die in a grease fire, so we’re all familiar with the basic defense mechanisms already. The Democrats, on the other hand… yeah, they’re only now realizing that everybody has cameras now, not just the reporters who are largely sympathetic to them.

Moe Lane