I think it’s unfair to apply democratic properties, and then expect them hence forth, to the U.S. news-media institutions. It’s certainly fallacious to imbue and generate perspectives within the media’s forums, in the hopes of edifying the political strife of the day—almost all of the times one is co-opted into the public debate and bestowed stupefied views, ordained to battle within limits truly inane. Mainstream media outlets are a great forum to evaluate current issues. Not for the sake of civic responsibility or to rationally express one’s advocacy, but rather to get a sense of where the periphery skirts on the issue and to depict how narrow or wide the circuits of conversation flow. With this in mind, it’s interesting that public suspicions of social institutions are at an all time high and that theory conspiracies run rampant in similar exuberance. This obviously includes politicos on their pedestals, entrenched in the media’s lavish attention span, as both regurgitate public pieties, though more refined (this is not to be confused for democracy’s representative principles and instead it should be averred that it’s a republic’s aristocratic monopoly); witness the blithe usage of “reform”, “special interests”, “lobbyists”, “[pejorative]… government”, “corruption”, “mainstream media”, “same old politics”, “…corporations”, “big oil”, etc. It’s a new trend that is cultivated by a behemoth industry called Public Relations, an extraordinary institution itself that evidences “politics as the shadow cast by business over society”, as John Dewey exclaimed in the early 20th century. It is a virtual axiom and a great indicator of which way the wind blows in the 21st century, as “the shadow” becomes more unctuous and devious; Hillary Clinton’s (a woman) campaign head was—even after he resigned—Mark Penn who is the CEO of Burson-Marsteller, one of the largest PR corporations in the world. (Side note: It’s interesting how Pam cites Bill Clinton for, ‘It’s the economy, stupid!’, when it was actually James Carville who boostered the phrase in hopes of wooing voter concern [much like today]; an economy which utterly afflicted the 3rd world during Clinton’s two terms, doing not much for the U.S. middle class and less for those beneath [not my analysis but that of Paul Krugman], and which paved the way for the recent subprime debacle.)
Coincidentally, the preceding explication is not from my own inspiration or whim, but rather a summation from the Mark Penn’s industry guru, Edward L. Bernays—a man who is much more eloquent than I and has a corpus for a CV.
As Bernays took note in the 1930’s (and I adjusted for “social inflation”), political conventions have an ability to stoke ire in its contemporary fray despite meek platitudes, prim speeches, and mannered zeal. They stir contentions induced by coverage from the entire media spectrum and I mean that categorically, as these conventions are a quadrennial event where they elbow Hollywood and Fashion for room in their fiefdoms—us. Nevertheless, conventions are provocative, despite orators’ stultifying pauses for applauds and glib colloquialism, and they’re not provocative because of the political jabs. These conventions manifest a flux in dissension because people are already successfully roused by their own prejudice (I didn’t use the word lightly) and merely wish to prove their veracity (somehow)—especially, in cognizance of the incumbent mercenaries at the White House. All in all, conventions are meretricious events with little importance to glean, except on learning the latest circumlocutions and chicanery of the issues . . .
Enter Sarah Palin. Much of this blog’s previous entries concerning McCain’s move are pretty much on the money. Voter suasion is pretty minimal. If it’s suppose to serve as beholding to the new mantle set by Hillary and Obama in politics, Palin’s VP nomination was a banal display by the Maverick. As it was previously stated in earlier blogs, Palin is less for the women’s movement (and I add) than Hillary. So that isn’t much of a reason to serve beholden to the new mantle. Palin is less of an experienced leader than Obama is unless you consider a bunch of white people with similar interests as demanding, a gargantuan wilderness with a vestige of civilization at it’s southern ports as qualified, and saying you battle corruption in the most corrupt state of the union where no news (until recently) of corruption-busting is ever heard, as exceptional. Palin is less of a prospective intelligence than the dotard McCain, unless you consider the decision to not abort her down syndrome baby in light of her pro-life advocacy which contends with pro-choice (in case you missed it, a decision presupposes a choice) as brilliance. However, Palin has followed through on the Republican’s trend of conservatism, by which like the rest of them, she is hardly conservative.
In this revelation, Palin almost but assuredly clinched the presidential victory for the Democrats in November. That is if we do not do something hideously stupid, like tying our efforts to character assassination, which is unnervingly fond for Biden. There are things we must keep to if it is decided that we are to win instead of compete. The difference there is that an election calls for propounding the candidates’ stance on the issue, in comparison to the rival party. If Democrats relent and compete in the who looks best and who looks worse affair, bickering and igniting slanderous media intimations, then you’ll level the playing field for the Republicans. Celebrity; that’s what this nation shamefully loves and politicos foster. There is a reason why an unbelievable proportion of the country is categorized under the label Democrat and why they hardly show up to vote, both physically and on the tally sheets. Lets not reinforce this dastard, invisible force by playing to its forte, vaudevilles.
Now, Palin demonstrates little importance except she’s a nice touch to the menagerie, that night she was introduced. Keep in mind, vaudevilles are their things and the issues are not. Taking their cue from Hillary, the elite who cried elitism, they highlight Obama’s groomed habits, articulateness and swagger, with furious vim. But, is it really Willard’s (Mitt Romney’s real first name, the name of his father’s best friend and hotel powerhouse J. Willard Marriot) place to excoriate the eastern Obamian elites with his $250 million dollar wallet bulging from his back pocket? Is it really drag queen Giuliani who says Obama patronizes Alaskans because it’s not cosmopolitan enough? Is it McCain’s place to talk about the economy when he knows squat about economics? What does it mean when he recruits Palin for the sake of women after losing his temper in 1992 (in public) and called his lipstick plastered trollop of a wife… exactly that? And then comes Palin to play her role in the lampoon; a nice complement to McCain’s hoary sheen, but I much prefer her with her hair up.
Notice, I’m not focusing on the issues because I don’t want them to look like they have nothing going for them. And it’s not because I’m voting Democrat this year that Republicans are taking the brunt of my critiques. Rather, they are actually the fringe group in this new political order of things, at least this time around. They are a dying breed whose sole purpose is to help the public to settle from their reel of the past 8 years. The important thing about Sarah Palin is that she is a mild harbinger for “the shadow of business”. The Republicans have accepted the new playing fields and Palin is proof. The shadow cast by business—politics—has crept a little more out, circumscribing a little more tolerance when dealing with its nemesis: the public. And upon a healthy examination of the issues, it becomes obvious that despite that the Republicans’ new tolerance, they will not be held accountable to issues after January 1st.
As two women have said before, the former which would have never attained such a position prior the 1960s and the latter which would never be taken serious today:
Dana Perino: So we believe that the President stood on his principle. He hasn't chased public opinion polls. He's aware of them, but he hasn't made decisions because of them, and I think there's a distinction. Just because you don't make decisions based on opinion polls doesn't mean you don't care what people think. We are all Americans. We care deeply about what people think.Dana Perino, White House Press Secretary
Journalist: The American people are being asked to die and pay for this, and you're saying they have no say in this war?
Perino: I didn't say that, Helen. But, Helen, this President was elected –
Journalist: Well, what it amounts to is you saying we have no input at all.
Perion: You had input. The American people have input every four years, and that's the way our system is set up.
Press Briefing, March 20, 2008
Our democracy is but a name. We vote? What does that mean? It means that we choose between two bodies of real, though not avowed, autocrats. We choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee…Hellen Keller, writing in 1911 to a suffragist in England
You ask for votes for women. What good can votes do when ten-elevenths of the land of Great Britain belongs to 200,000 and only one-eleventh to the rest of the 40,000,000? Have your men with their millions of votes freed themselves from this injustice?
PS If any you want sources, just email me. I did this on the fly and did not cite.
1 comment:
Kool article, smart guy. As always you're right. But, as a matter fact, I want all the sources. Wanna make sure you're right. But good stuff. You're a up and coming writer, Tim
Post a Comment