|
|
June 17, 2013
|
|
|
|
 Politics as EntertainmentPosted on Jan 30, 2012
LOS ANGELES—In 1976, to my regret, I wrote what amounted to an obituary of the Republican Party. Writing about the Democratic Convention in New York that year, I said:
"The Republicans were declining into a parody of the nation and its politics, an aging clustering of white Protestants, small tycoons and shopkeepers from small places representing, according to polls, 20 percent or less of the American people. The party of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt had deteriorated into a reactive core that lived off Democratic mistakes, which were many—so many that the Republicans had controlled the focus of national power, the presidency, for eight years under Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford."
Wrong! In fact, the Democrats were about to go into the tank.
The Democrats chose weak and indecisive leaders, and stumbled through a series of economic and military misjudgments. The Grand Old Party got even older, finding an unlikely leader in his 70s, an old actor, Ronald Reagan, who mobilized young conservatives into energetically believing it was their morning in America. Reagan was able to unite the many right wings of America—militarists, old-fashioned fiscal conservatives, racists, angry populists who blamed big government for all problems, power-hungry young intellectuals from small colleges—into a winning coalition, while the Democrats got themselves tangled in complicated efforts to bring fairness and equality to their party.
Then Reaganism ran out of steam and began making the kind of mistakes Democrats had made when they were running the country. It turned out that all the Republicans who loved Reagan disliked one another. Without the great man at the center, Reaganism exploded into dozens of factions that have finally shown themselves in the wonderfully wild series of presidential debates these past few months. Never have so many had so little to say about so much.
Advertisement
There is a lot of that. You can sort of see a casting director moving from "Jersey Shore" over to the Republican National Committee and saying, "Get a look at this bunch—they’ll say anything!"
What I see is an aquarium. The debates look like a tank full of exotic fish flashing their stuff for an instant at a time. You never see the whole thing, just flashes.
Flash: Michele Bachmann. A lie.
Flash: Newt Gingrich. A scandal.
Flash: Jon Huntsman. What was that?
Flash: Elitism. Who’s elite—the rich or the educated?
Flash: There are rules. Gingrich can’t run in Virginia.
Flash: Establishment. But which establishment?
Flash: Momentum. What’s that—money? Polls?
In the end, it is entertainment. Exactly what it is meant to be.
Newt Gingrich is not so far off in saying that "the media" are using this endless series of debates for their own purpose. He says that purpose is to re-elect Barack Obama by getting Republicans to make fools of themselves. He’s wrong about part of that. The media, particularly CNN this time, have pushed Republicans into playing it for laughs. They’d do the same to the Democrats if they got a chance like this.
Copyright 2012 Universal Uclick  TAGS:
|
New Iranian President Wants to Heal ‘Old Wound’ With U.S.
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By 3am mystic, February 2, 2012 at 10:56 am Link to this comment
I was only 10 years old when the Kennedy/Nixon debate was televised, but I remember well sitting on the floor watching it with my parents.
Even Nixon with his nerves and sweat sounded like an intellectual giant compared to this shallow bunch.
Report thisBy Outraged, January 31, 2012 at 6:29 pm Link to this comment
The Republicans are a circus. And they’re not funny as in actually funny, they are worse than the worst bimbo persona I’ve ever witnessed. It’s insane. Matt Taibbi caught the mood perfectly in South Carolina (a truly entertaining read), check it out:
“They’re fast turning into the most luridly entertaining political spectacle of our time. In an inherently conservative, bottomlessly moneyed, scrupulously stage-managed electoral system designed to preclude chance or weirdness from playing any part in determining our political future, the unthinkable is happening: real drama. This isn’t part of some clever but inscrutable master plan, put on by the hidden hands who run this country, to fool or distract the masses. This is an unscripted fuck-up of heroic dimensions, radiating downward from the highest levels of our society, playing out in real time for all of us to watch. Our oligarchy has thrown a rod.”
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-odd-couple-romney-vs-gingrich-20120130#ixzz1l5ZRotmO
Rawstory paired up Romney’s singing debut against Obama’s and you almost feel sorry for Romney…. I mean is he for REAL! My God, what the hell was he thinking——- btw, if you scroll down and check out the poll at the link you’ll find Romney loses to the “I don’t care” vote…...LOL.
Rawstory:
Report thishttp://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/31/romney-sings-america-the-beautiful/
By Tobysgirl, January 31, 2012 at 2:57 pm Link to this comment
Gay abortionist? Is this goofy or what?
Richard Nixon and the Republican Party realized that the way to take the South was to embrace racism, the racism that says “crime,” “immigrant,” “welfare” instead of “nigger.” And it worked. I would really rather have such people proclaim themselves Republicans; the Democratic Party contains plenty of gormless idiots without Dixiecrats.
Hate to tell you this, bubba, but not that many people hate gay abortionists. What the hell is a gay abortionist, does anyone know?!?!?!?!?
Report thisBy MeHere, January 31, 2012 at 1:36 pm Link to this comment
Yes, it’s nothing but entertainment about organized crime -with some gossip bits but without the glamour and human touches that are usually included. Sadly, the results from the 2012 national election are bound to show that, for the vast majority in the US, the debate shows are reality and not “reality shows.”
Report thisBy David J. Cyr, January 31, 2012 at 11:31 am Link to this comment
The function of the corporate (R) & (D) party’s deceptive liberal reforms, like the STOCK Act and the various campaign finance reforms, is always to just change appearances, while either actually changing nothing or only making the most insignificant “changes” possible.
“The more things change, the more they stay the same.”
— Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr
That’s true here because mindless majorities keep providing popular mandates to only have corporate (R) & (D) party “change” — never any actual change.
Report thisBy Jeff N., January 31, 2012 at 11:15 am Link to this comment
David, wow.. and I was under the sadly delusional impression that the STOCK act might make a difference. *sigh* I’ll have to do some investigation into the blind trust situation.
Report thisBy David J. Cyr, January 31, 2012 at 10:46 am Link to this comment
QUOTE, Jeff N:
“Speaking of political theater, the STOCK act, probably the most obvious piece of legislation ever, has finally made its way through the senate and might actually be put into law!”
____________
Yes, more theater for liberal consumption.
The corporate (R) & (D) party’s Congress critters might obey the STOCK Act, but their (not “any person”) “Blind” Trusts won’t.
How convenient it is that corporations are “persons” and trusts are not. They can trust their “blind” trust trustees to discreetly testify to being deaf too — to having never seen nor heard any insider information. Cleverly blind and deaf trusts, but not dumb.
Jill Stein for President:
http://www.jillstein.org
Voter Consent Wastes Dissent:
http://chenangogreens.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=498&Itemid=1
Report thisBy Andrew, January 31, 2012 at 10:15 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Campaigning is an art, not a science. It has always been about being an entertainer, and whoever is the best entertainer wins. Colbert is showing just how true that is now by merging the two processes.
Report thisBy Jeff N., January 31, 2012 at 10:02 am Link to this comment
David, check out http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/01/28/preparing-minds-for-an-israeli-attack-on-iran ... pretty interesting piece about the same article you are referring to.
Speaking of political theater, the STOCK act, probably the most obvious piece of legislation ever, has finally made its way through the senate and might actually be put into law! Hoorayy! Good job congress.. what good little boys and girls you are.
Report thisBy Dr_Snooz, January 30, 2012 at 10:50 pm Link to this comment
“The Democrats chose weak and indecisive leaders, and
stumbled through a series of economic and military
misjudgments.”
The Democrats foundered because of their embrace of
Report thisgay rights and abortion. By turning their focus away
from economic justice and pushing two specific
agendas that were anathema to most Americans, the
Dems alienated just about everyone who wasn’t a gay
abortionist. These agendas were especially repulsive
to the formerly Democratic, blue-collar Southerners
so important in Reagan’s election. The left has near
total amnesia on this point. I hope it remembers,
because it would be better for this country if they
didn’t shoot themselves this way again.
By David J. Cyr, January 30, 2012 at 7:56 pm Link to this comment
Meanwhile…
” Israel estimates that Iran’s nuclear program is about nine months away from being able to withstand an Israeli attack… After speaking with many senior Israeli leaders and chiefs of the military and the intelligence, I have come to believe that Israel will indeed strike Iran in 2012.”
— journalist, Ronen Bergman, in Sunday 01/29/12 NY Times Magazine cover story:“Will Israel Attack Iran?”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/magazine/will-israel-attack-iran.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha210
Report this