"As I write, the President of the United States is a former Hollywood movie actor...Although the Constitution makes no mention of it, it would appear that fat people are now effectively excluded from running for high political office. Probably bald people as well...Indeed, we have reached the point where cosmetics has replaced ideology as the field of expertise over which a politician must have competent control."
Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death, 1985
I hear conservatives rail against Obama for being an empty suit, a stylized persona mediated through a teleprompter. And sadly, in many ways, they'd be right. But I also hear liberals rail against Sarah Palin for being a pretty face. All style, no substance. And sadly, I think they'd also be right.
Campaigns don't provide a clash of ideals, where good ideas and rigorous ideology are debated. The only proof you need is that soon after Obama's inauguration, most of the country disagreed with his politics but approved of the job he was doing. In short, they liked his face, but not his positions. But for what other reason should we elect a President than for his positions or ideology?
The implications of television are deep embedded in our culture. Democrats, who own the numbers in the House and the Senate, still can't pass the healthcare legislation they want because they want to be re-elected (by conservative districts). But why would the public elect folks to office with whom the sincerely disagree with over major issues?
The answer to these mystifying questions is that the television decides who is more telegenic. And the more telegenic person wins. After a Presidential debate, the commentary is rarely on the policies and ideas, but always on how someone "looked" or "sounded." Image is more important than ideas.
Postman accused this decadence in American politics even of the great conservative hope, Reagan. And he was right. Reagan was guilty of all kinds of poor logic and incomplete public discourse. And Obama is worse. He'll actually say one thing in a speech and do quite the opposite (see most of his decisions on foreign policy). For centuries, this phenomenon was called lying.
Television hasn't just underminded our public debate, it has made us susceptible to believe outright lies.
There's very little solutions to stem the tide of this cultural wave. Even our newspapers are more enamored with horse races than the actual ideas of a campaign. The only seeming solution is to turn off the tv and read more. Don't watch internet video, but read a politician's actual platform on their website.
And care about the truth, not about what you like or dislike.
Posts
3 comments:
You're absolutely right. It's good to know other people are reading Postman. I thought I was the only one. We've lost something and we don't even know it. Postman should be read by everyone, but sadly he is forgotten.
I think I'll disagree with that quote you have there from Postman. I do not think today's politician MUST be a product of good cosmetics. (Joe Biden) And certainly bald people can be elected today. (Dick Cheney)
The danger in today's campaigns is definitely in their lack of idealogical clarity, and in the unfettered exchange of ideas in a truly substantive debate. TV is not necessarily the cause of that, however. Instead, the problem is a disinterested and disengaged public that willfully chooses to ignore the substance (or lack thereof in the case of Obama) of a candidate's platform in order to vote for a candidate based entirely on whose "turn" it is popularly perceived to be.
I'd refer you back to the Democratic primaries and encourage you to listen to voters' actual comments. Their choice was about whether it was "time" for a woman president, or "time" for a black president.
Certainly TV has influenced the presidency, and the nature of national campaigns. Candidates do have to learn how to play to their audience in a TV-friendly way--something Nixon had not learned during his debates against JFK in 1960. Even before the advent of television, however, candidates could still hold sway over a disengaged public: FDR used the radio; TR used his dynamic speaking style in public appearances.
The question is whether the public is willing (or, even ABLE, for that matter) to do the personal, individual work of a responsible, thoughtfully engaged citizen and study up on the candidate's positions--despite how s/he appears on TV.
Wenzel,
Great thoughts. I suppose I didn't represent Postman as well as possible. Naturally, his book includes several evidential claims of the effects of television on all of American culture. He starts his book with an analysis of the print-based culture in early American history, then talks about how the telegraph subtly undermined that. Then radio, then television.
Postman would argue that the public is disengaged and disinterested because it seeks only to be entertained, and the reason it seeks only to be entertained is because of the ubiqutous effects of tv.
I'd also argue that Biden and Cheney weren't voted for. People don't vote for the Vice-Presidency, plain and simple. Biden didn't even make it a few weeks in the democratic primary, for instance.
No doubt candidates must play the game to get elected, these days. I suppose I'm just lamenting the fact that Abe Lincoln would never have been elected in today's world. Too ugly.
Post a Comment