Celebrity Candidates and Mavericks.
Why do politics, policy, procedure, the instruction manual for the VCR, DVR, cellphone, etcetera tend to bore most people? Because they're usually about dense collections of facts or instructions; you have to pay attention; you have to assemble sometimes complex frameworks of understanding; you need to invest time in things that are low-return in terms of immediate stimulation:
Our cave-brain falls asleep.
US Magazine, People, talk radio and others... they make it "simple" for us. And "exciting." How "helpful."
ABC - The Note: How Palin is Playing in the Supermarket AislesThe "professional" stance on the above revelations is that they are personal matters. Not to the low-information voter. Maybe in an ethics class they're conundrum, but not hardly when it comes to water coolers and grocery store aisles. Stories and their tensions are what wake us up, grab our attention. We all know that's what politicians are attempting to lever--our sympathies, our revulsions, that precious attention--with their examples of the cancer-survivor mom they meet on the campaign trail. "Awww," we say. Or, "Outrageous!" At least, that's what they hope our response will be.
In the last post, I mentioned the calculated-for-celebrity nature of Gov. Sarah Palin. Her ascending list of characteristics--mother, beauty, decider, shooter, slayer of moose--climbed all the way to a caricature before the intro by McCain was even done. It was hyperreal, exactly what McCain or Rove or whomever hoped to achieve. It parallels something you may have seen described in these parts...
But, problem is, our new hybrid Barbie/Lara Croft/Maggie Thatcher is an impossible construct. The marketers who "found" Palin lost their bearings. By going deep for the visceral identification that some crave, yet by misapprehending and mis-presenting it, they laid themselves open to the accompanying deep suspicion that their R-Complex imagery will awaken in many, even the sympathetic. Too good to be true has a complement: Too perfect to be human.
The question remains to be answered: You got what you wanted. Is it what you really asked for?
posted by fouro @ 5:38 PM
2 comments
links to this post
2 Comments:
Eeek. It's hard to convey what this looks like to us cheese-eating surrender monkeys in Europe. Beyond parody, way beyond!
Mark,
It is an interesting concept about the emotional appeal of politicians through tabloid magazines.
I am reminded of a chapter from a book I read very recently called 'Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior' in which the authors discuss interviewing processes. After reviewing data on how employers go about interviewing people, most interviewers use the "blind date" method - which is based on asking questions such as "Where do you see yourself in five years?", "What are your strengths and weaknesses?", etc... Employers are less likely to actually find someone who fits their company or business. The researchers in this area have determined that the best method for interviewing a new employee is by using the "just the facts" method, which they have determined is approximately 6 times more likely to find an employee to fit your business (though not always guaranteed). The reason the "just the facts" method is rarely employed is because every interviewer thinks she or he can peer inside the mind of the interviewee using non-specific questions that warrant vague responses. These types of questions incidentally make it easier for the interviewee to tell the interviewer what he or she wants to hear.
Now apply this same idea to our two major party presidential candidates, neither of whom have really been asked "just the facts" and yet the U.S. populace would prefer a "blind date" with both candidates because it is entertaining, and surely when asked "What are your strengths and weaknesses?" we are sure to get a weakness that sounds more like a strength. This "blind date" method, could also be argued as a reason for putting third party candidates on the "fringe" - because they tend to talk more about the facts and do not entertain us. Think Ralph Nader, always talking about issues (and sometimes the major political parties corporate ties), he is not electrifying when he talks about the facts and cites sources. He is not Obama talking about grand plans with no detail, or McCain talking about defeating evil as though the concept of evil is black and white.
Perhaps we should be asking better questions of our politicians than simply "Do you pray?" but then again such questions are equally reflective of the U.S. populace, who seem to be more than willing to gobble these answers up. Perhaps the U.S. populace needs someone to frame questions to them such as "What are the long-term affects of simplicity (simplicity which could be argued as ignorance is bliss)?". Although I am sure there are no easy answers here in reference to how to get the U.S. population to examine critically their choices for president. Especially when they are told what they want to hear.
Interesting blog post!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home