The Gospel Coalition

Game Change was in the news before it was even released. Several shocking revelations (or perhaps “shocking” revelations) reverberated around Washington. John Heilemann and Mark Halperin broke the news of Harry Reid’s use of the word “negro” in relation to Obama and Reid was immediately forced to issue an apology. Bill Clinton muttered that a guy like Obama would have been serving him coffee had he been around just a few years earlier. I don’t think he apologized. But this book, telling the story of “Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime” had already made its mark and was headed to the top of the bestseller list.

Though the book deals with historical events–the 2008 Presidential elections–I have a difficult time considering it history. History is an accounting of past events and as such, relies on proof. Proof is a tricky thing, though. We tend to see proof as footnotes and citations. In some contexts proof may also be a quote attributed to a person. In either case, the value of such references is that they can be verified and validated. I can turn to the source cited and see immediately that a quote is accurate or inaccurate either in wording or sense. Or I can simply ask the person whether he did, indeed, say what was attributed to him. The history is only as good as its credibility and credibility comes through proof.

The historical accounts in the New Testament are an example of eyewitness evidence. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:6 that over 500 people had been witness to the resurrected Jesus with the implication that anyone could simply go and ask them if Jesus had, indeed, risen from the dead. He knew people would look for proof and he was glad to offer it.

Game Change offers no proof for any of the facts it presents. “The majority of the material in these pages was taken from more than three hundred interviews with more than two hundred people conducted between July 2008 and September 2009.” No problem, so far. Interviews provide excellent historical research. “All of our interviews–from those with junior staffers to those with the candidate themselves–were conducted on a ‘deep background’ basis, which means we agreed not to identify the subjects as sources in any way.” But here we come to a complication. The authors say that this anonymity was necessary in order to preserve a high level of candour. But a skeptic may well see it as suspiciously convenient. A historian will demand more proof. The authors say, “just trust us.” But if this is to be credible history, we are within our rights to demand more.

The book’s content itself is interesting, even if it lacks credibility. The authors are equally-opportunity offenders, I think. If I had to guess, I’d say that their sympathies lie more with the Democrats than the Republicans but it may be just that my sympathies tend to lie the other way (as much as it matters to me as a Canadian) and so I am more easily offended when they write of the people I prefer. On the whole what they say serves to further the stereotypes. Hillary Clinton is an angry and controlling ego-centrist. Obama is a man of the hour, thrust upon the world stage and eager to embrace fame. McCain is an old, foul-mouthed grouch who is fighting for a last chance for his day in the spotlight. Sarah Palin is naive, emotional and pseudo-competent at best. There are few surprises here. Of course it is not all negative, but those are certainly the impressions that will last the longest. It is the negative that will prevail.

But really, because the authors offer no proof, I found myself reading without wanting to retain. I did not want to have my opinions of these people shaped by a book that is gossip as much as it is history. I want to believe the best of people (even Hillary Clinton!) and do not want to allow biased, anonymous sources to shape my perceptions. And so I read enough to understand the book, but almost with a view to forgetting it. I was probably more successful in the former than the latter. But isn’t that just the way gossip works? Once we hear it, we cannot unhear it.

Game Change was a disappointment in just about every way. While it claims to be an “ultimately definitive” account of the 2008 presidential campaign, its absolute lack of credibility ensures that this is not the case. A definitive account will need to do better than this. For now, this is little more than a National Enquirer level of history.

Verdict: Read it if you get your news from the gossip mags.