Top Leaderboard, Site wide
August 30, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


Committed Carbon Emissions Are Rising Fast






Truthdig Bazaar
When Skateboards Will Be Free

When Skateboards Will Be Free

By Saïd Sayrafiezadeh
$14.96

Acting Together: Performance and the Creative Transformation of Conflict: Volume I

Acting Together: Performance and the Creative Transformation of Conflict: Volume I

By Cynthia Cohen (Editor); Roberto Gutierrez Varea (Editor); Polly O. Walker (Editor); Dijana Milosevic (Contribution by); Charles Mulekwa (Contribution by)
$21.95

more items

 
Arts and Culture

Is It Lady Who’s Gaga or the Senate?

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Sep 22, 2010
AP / Pat Wellenbach

By Larry Gross

The sight of the overexposed Lady Gaga addressing a rally in Maine urging repeal of the military’s anti-gay “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy might seem merely another step on our society’s downward spiral, something akin to the surfacing of videos revealing Christine O’Donnell’s dabbling in witchcraft. But I believe that there is another message embedded in this meeting of the political and the pop: a stark illustration that we currently live in two worlds that operate according to radically disparate principles.

On the one hand we all live in the United States of America, as defined by the political terms of the U.S. Constitution, but which has greatly expanded and altered since the era of 13 founding colonies. At that time, the political negotiations that resulted in our constitutional system focused on the competing interests of rural and urban power blocs—note the placement of state capitols such as Albany and Harrisburg far from the metropolitan population centers—and the tensions between slave-holding and anti-slavery states. The resulting legislative system of two equal but very different bodies, giving proportional representation in the “lower” house and equal representation to each state in the “upper” house has led, over the intervening 11 score years, to a radically undemocratic political system. To put it simply, our current setup gives states with relatively tiny populations the same political power in the Senate, arguably the more powerful of the two congressional bodies, as states with enormous populations. To put it in concrete terms, there are seven states with populations so small that they rate only one member of the House of Representatives (Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming), and their combined populations add up to approximately 5,200,000, which is considerably less than the population of New York City (approximately 8.3 million) or upstate New York [11.2 million]. Four adjacent western states—Montana, Wyoming and the Dakotas, have a total of less than 3 million residents, whereas Los Angeles has close to 4 million.

And it’s not merely a matter of numbers. Most of the states with the smallest populations are disproportionately older, more rural, whiter, less educated and more religious than the country as a whole, and certainly when compared with the largest states: California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania and so on.

What this translates to in the political realm, as we are all too aware, is enormous deference to the interests of these “atypical” population groups, which are more conservative, more religious, more hostile to minorities and change. The differences between the House and the Senate, in composition and in political leanings, bear out this disproportionate weight distribution.

On the other hand, we also live in a country increasingly dominated by a common culture that is driven by the commercial interests of the entertainment-oriented mass media industries. These industries are focused not on the relative power of groups favored by the arrangements negotiated by the Founders in 1789, but on the interests of those who pay them for the opportunity to reach their viewers, the advertisers. And, as is well known, if not scientifically supportable, these advertisers are disproportionately interested in the young, the urban and the trendy. Thus, it is hardly surprising that the content of most of our commercial media is offensive to large swathes of our population, in particular, the older, more religious, more rural, less educated—in other words, to those whose representatives in the Senate carry disproportionate political power.

This disparity in the political system—composed of elements notably deferential to the interests of one segment of the population and the dominant commercial media industries, avidly seeking the eyes, hearts and disposable income of a vastly different segment of the population—inevitably leads to contradictions that often seem hard to explain, but in reality aren’t very complicated. Over the past few decades we have been treated to repeated episodes in which members of Congress, usually senators, conduct “show trial” hearings to condemn the representatives of one or another branch of the entertainment media, from comic books to network TV to rock music to movies to video games, demanding censorship to protect innocent youth from the baleful influence of content sure to be offensive to their real audience, the voters back home. And, each time, the industry leaders promise to police themselves, label their products (making the good stuff all the easier for youngsters to find), build in parental controls and, at the same time, avoid the threat of legislative limitations (which, they know well, rarely survive constitutional challenge). So, each side is able to serve its own interests without fundamentally challenging the inexorable tide of cultural change—for many the appropriate term is corruption—that is mandated by the media’s need to reach the audience desperately sought by advertisers.

In the realm of what we politely refer to as “social issues,” we can see the same dynamic at play. For younger segments of the population, who grew up knowing that Ellen Degeneres was, yep, gay, and probably knowing lesbian and gay classmates, friends and even relatives, the “wedge” issue so beloved of the right—it was, after all, an issue that drew large bipartisan majorities in Congress to pass “don’t ask, don’t tell” and the Defense of Marriage Act, both supported and signed by President Bill Clinton—has lost the power to generate fear and loathing. Demography is on the side of justice in this case, and the commercial media understand that full well. As a recent poll showed, among individuals ages 18 to 29, an estimated 65 percent support marriage equality, and Gallup reports that 70 percent of Americans favor allowing gays to serve openly in the military. The handwriting is on the wall.

Unfortunately, history usually moves slower than time, and many lives will be diminished, damaged and even destroyed before our political system catches up with our culture. The undemocratic arrangements negotiated in 18th century Philadelphia will remain with us for a long time, in part because no one knows how to reopen negotiations without risking arrangements far more dangerous. And so we will continue to live in two simultaneous but radically incongruous realities, while our political leaders remain in thrall to conservative constituents and obedient to their corporate patrons.

Larry Gross is the director of the USC Annenberg School for Communication. A specialist in media and culture, art and communication, visual communication and media portrayals of minorities, Gross helped found the field of gay and lesbian studies.


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By lennerd, December 22, 2010 at 8:00 pm Link to this comment

I didn’t read the other comments. Too much hostility, often.

But lovely, clear prose from Mr. Gross, thank you!

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, September 24, 2010 at 11:29 am Link to this comment

She sound coherent and seems to make sense… she’s an entertainer, and seems like she reads too.

I’d vote for her and Jon Stewart before what any professional politico the Dems or Reps or Tea Bags have to offer.

Report this

By BOB, September 23, 2010 at 5:46 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ha Ha, Gays want the right to join the army and Lady Gaga has a cause. That is like straights wanting the right to get slugged in the shoulder every day at gym class.  They should count their blessings that the army doesn’t want them to pillage a village.

Report this

By algomajoker, September 22, 2010 at 9:50 am Link to this comment

Wow.  Good article, and two good comments preceding mine.  This confirms my belief that the U.S. Senate is an outmoded institution that should be eliminated.  Its greatest purpose seems to be the perpetuation of itself.  It has long since stopped being a vehicle through which the needs of its constituents are espoused.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, September 22, 2010 at 9:03 am Link to this comment

Great article, perspective and historical insight Larry… good job.

Too bad we all were not born white, wealthy, rural and religious… then we would have nothing to fear.. but fear itself.

Report this

By Everett, September 22, 2010 at 8:18 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Gay and lesbian rights is not a “social” issue. It’s a human rights issue. Calling it a “social” issue is a trivialization, and was originated by homophobes unwilling to concede fundamental human dignity and worth to gay and lesbian people.

Report this

By FRTothus, September 22, 2010 at 3:55 am Link to this comment

Taking the lessons of the Civil War from a northern
industrial perspective would lead one to conclude
that it was about the “tensions between slave-holding
and anti-slavery states.”  But when taking the
Southern perspective, or by taking a perspective from
the view of labor, it was in fact a conflict between
not only State’s rights versus Federal hegemony, not
only industry versus agriculture, but also between
those industrialists in the north who were pushing
for wage slavery versus those who saw the outright
slavery of the south as much more benign.  The
conflict between these two perspectives, the
industrial north versus the rural, agricultural
south, persists to this day, now on a global scale. 
The industrialists, then and now, much prefer to
relinquish all responsibility for the workers. Where
and how the workers live in their “off” time, their
welfare while they are not at work, as children, 
when they are too old or feeble and can no longer
work, what happens to them when they are ill, is not
the concern of the employer.  Granted, living as a
slave was no picnic, but at least the slaves had a
semblance of cradle-to-grave security still denied to
wage slaves all the way up to the present day.
On the larger political issues, representational
government, and the means by which legislators are
put in office, the difficulties involved in
petitioning for redress of grievances, the “disparity
in the political system” the article mentions, all
serve the same purpose: to deter, by design,
democracy and democratic rule in favor of elite,
educated (code for indoctrinated), industrial rule.
Currently, as I see it, there are two competing
ideologies.  It is not rural versus urban, or
educated versus ignorant, it is humanist versus
fascist; people and their welfare versus capital
exploitation.

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.