I’m not quite sure who Richard Neal is.
I know he represents the Springfield area in the United States Congress. I know he has been a grade school teacher in the past, and is a professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. And I know his history of supporting his constituents, their city, and their various causes, has made him well liked as a politician.
But I don’t think I really know who he is.
Last year I took a class with him: the Journalist and the Politician. Great class. I highly recommend it to anyone looking to go into either field. It gives Journalists an idea of what to expect when dealing with politicians, as well as giving people looking to go into politics an idea of how to handle us pesky journalists.
If there’s one thing I took away from that class, it’s that if you want to make it in either politics or journalism, you have to learn how to, in Neal’s own words, “play the game.”
Neal is a real master of this. To him, playing the game is really about putting on the politician mask, and never taking it off until you absolutely know you’re away from prying eyes. You can see this in both his teaching style, and how he handles himself during an interview.
A couple weeks ago I got to do an interview with Neal over the phone. We talked about Springfield’s Magnet Schools Assistance Program. He and Senator Kerry had worked to get this money to support Springfield’s minority students. This is what he said when I asked him why the investment was personally important to him:
“I think it augments 21st century global communication skills, and I think it emphasizes heavily what the new economy looks like. As a former teacher I think assisting these children … is just a good idea and it should be treated as an investment.”
If that’s not a cookie cutter response taken right out of some speech or press release I don’t know what is. I didn’t ask him for that; I asked him why it was personally important.
I remember getting responses like this in his class. Somebody would ask about how he felt about something, or how he would have reacted in a situation, and the response we would get was always like reading out of a textbook. You couldn’t get the guy to tell how he really felt about anything. Any anecdotes he gave were always about times when he won or did something exemplary as a politician.
Later in the interview I tried to get him to open up again. I asked him how he would like to see the money spent. That’s not even a very prying question. He said:
“I really refrain from that. I think the partnership is based upon the priorities that are determined by local officials, with the understanding that having children that excel is something good for America.”
How patriotic, and how very political.
It’s stuff like this that makes it very difficult for me to figure out who he is. He’s a great politician, and a very informative and interesting professor. But I wish I understood him a little better. I guess it all comes back to playing the game though. He’s better at it than most I think. Certainly better than me.
http://www.zshare.net/myzshare/my-uploads.php
No comments:
Post a Comment