A funny thing happened on the way to the forum...
Sunday, October 15, 2006 at 5:34PM With the Robin Williams comedy coming out that posits a comedian running for the White House, I feel we've entered the true wonderland that is testament to the Bush administration's capacity to warp politics in our nation: comedy has basically replaced political discourse. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert and Bill Maher and that SNL guy considering the Senate from Minnesota... these are serious examples of the best political analyses out there today.
The last time comedians dominated the public discourse like this in my life was under Nixon--again, testament to Bush's ability to divide and enrage like no other since Dick.
Hilarious to some, but sad to me, because when the comedians and showbiz types reign, it pretty much signals a public retreat from political life. This is not engagement. This is withdrawal, and that's Bush's real legacy.
Here's the even sadder bit: all of these showbiz types who now so craftily take apart Bush and the GOP every night on TV and throughout the MSM are actually overshadowing the official Democrat response to all this poor leadership, which pretty much makes the comedians and showbiz types the best out there right now.
And on that note, let me say we should finally amend the Constitution and let Arnold run. I mean, he's as showbiz as they come, and built an action career on humor more than anything else, so why the hell not? Give George Clooney a run for his hunkdom.
Reader Comments (14)
Seems to me that in part the Bush folks politics is systemic of the current media climate, and so is the rise of Cobert and John Stewart... Why was there no substantial questioning of the Bush team after to 9/11? I read a couple of Kissinger's books which was enough for me to know the march to war in Iraq was was a little on the iffy side, that and from listening to you.. even if you where a good deal more optimistic about these sorts of things at the time.. What makes John and Cobert so great is that they where the only folks who had the balls to really tell the truth for such a long time... One imagines that this must have something to do with power relations inside of the media... which leads one too turn to social media for hope.. Or that's my old school American pragmatism view of it.. with a lil Foucault on the side for good measure.
Jon Daly? With his Timex?
Of course you meant Jon Stewart, Tom. After a hiatus I'm back reading your blog again and enjoying it as much as I ever did. Great work.
Presidents have been providing fodder for comedians for as long as I can remember. But the reality of government is no joke. Try entering the political process in your home town, through appointment to a local board or commission. The demands, hostility of some of the public, and headaches that go with the job will really open your eyes. Seldom will you make a decision that everybody likes, and the ones that don't will let you know about it. Being mocked doesn't help, either.
Uh, um, ah, Dr. Barnett, you feeling ok? Easy for me to say, difficult for you to act on BUT climb out of the media bubble for a week. Best Rx I can think of other than South Carolina, 27 holes a day.
Wait, Robin Williams as a comedian? That is indeed far-fetched.
In all seriousness though, I'm part of that group that has largely retreated from political life, mainly because most of the serious discourse is eclipsed by those spewing vitriolic bile at the opposing party or one another. That's probably a feature of politics, and not a bug, but nevertheless I'd rather distance myself from that. While Bush is definately a polarizing figure, there's plenty of blame to go around for the current degeneration of political discussion.
As for Arnold running for President, he has my vote as long as he agrees to make a sequel to Raw Deal.
"And on that note, let me say we should finally amend the Constitution and let Arnold run." Jon Stewart couldn't have said it better.
Dr. Barnett, This post was a joke, right? Our system, because it is not perfect, locks us into nearly always choosing the lesser of two evils. With the GOP we get tax cuts (economic growth) a better Supreme Court and a willingness to engage the world (no matter how clumsily). With the Democrats we get high taxes, class warfare, activists judges who do not like property rights, an innate hatred of the military and an abject fear of body bags returning to Dover AFB. Although the GOP has difficulty governing (esp the GOP Senateors) the Democrats are simply not serious. A Clinton II administration will put all you've been talking about on hold. And then it will be 2016.
ChuckR: a joke, yes, but not the intense criticism of the Bush administration, on which Tom's opinion is a matter of record.
i doubt your partisan view, with nothing good to say about the Democrats, will get much of a hearing from Tom. he can find some good things about them and votes for them regularly. he can also find some good things about Republicans.
Al Franken is the SNL guy. And unlink Sen. Allen in VA, he was born and lived in the state he hopes to represent, and actually understands the issues. I saw him the other day and he is more in touch with what's going on than most long-term politicians.
I agree with the last part of what ChuckR said. Although one could most definetly bring up some counterpoints against the GOP in favor of the Dems - but I think Barnett's Gap would stay unchanged (or negatively affected) if Clinton II or worse came about.
We have not seen a concrete agenda from the Dems regarding tough issues like Iraq/Afghan. Also the scary proposition that we enter bilateral talks with norkor.
Tom's comment about public retreat is dead on - the reason for it in my opinion is the media more so than something he called Bush’s real legacy or all the daily bi-partisan poop throwing that the media facilitates.
Thomas P: (what is this, the thread of the Toms? ;-)
while i will grant a liberal media bias, more than that, the media is a market. we get the kind of media and government that we buy/deserve. we need to hold our population and our politicians to better than poop throwing.
maybe this is the 'po' thread ;-)
some of this partisanship will probably always be with us in the worst system besides every other one.
You are right Sean. Unfortunately, one of main things that has made this whole problem possible is the fact that there is too much partisanship in our country today. As such, Democrats and Republicans alike don't like to criticize their own party or leaders and instead deal with criticism that comes from the other side by insinctively making counter accusations that do little to advance the debate about the issues that are of utmost importance to our nation. That is why, rather than just admit that we're on the wrong course, partisan republicans tend to ignore the criticism and focus exclusively on the faults of the democrats. In addition, because of that same partisanship we the public are left with two false choices, mainly, "cut and run" or "stay the course," when neither is sufficient or apt for dealing with the problems we are confronted with today. If more democrats and republicans were comfortable criticizing their own leaders, and able to take criticism from accross the aisle, perhaps we wouldn't be in this mess...
The scary thing about the possibility of Arnold being president is that, if he started getting all militaristic and confrontational in a negative way, even a lot of those of us who would be against all that normally would think it was pretty badass.
When Bush said "Bring 'em on" I thought, what is he thinking!?
But if Arnold was up there telling the Taliban, "Prepare to be terminated," against my better judgement I know my heart would swell with pride at being an American!
It's a funny thought exercize really. In light of that I feel I now have a better understanding of the appeal fascism can have over the mind and spirit in the right circumstances.
Culture, whether that be plays, tv shows or movies, frequently addresses issues that the public isn't willing or able to talk about. M*A*S*H couldn't talk about Vietnam, so they situated it in Korea instead. America wouldn't face McCarthy until The Crucible made it ok. Before the movie Demolition Man came out, no one would have seriously considered Arnold as "presidential material." And if one watches Battlestar Galactica, one comes away recognizing the Cylon in American actions in the middle east.
One could call them "tipping points." And you recognize them at every boring party/meeting you get suckered into going to: everyone stays until the first person leaves, then everyone leaves within a couple minutes.
But I wouldn't call them "a public retreat from political life" since the public discourse is driven by marketing and pr campaigns - and that is Karl Rove's career. Actual discussion of any reason for invading Iraq wasn't permitted, and as a country, we're retroactively trying to justify the invasion. Actual discussions of the incompetence of the administration likewise are not permitted to be discussed in MSM, the only place that such discussions are permitted are in the sphere of comedy, where anything can be said. In the Soviet Union, being drunk excused any "disloyal" statements, since it was the vodka talking, not the drunkard talking.
The retreat from reason comes with the "stab in the back" legend:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolchstosslegende
We did that retreat to explain away the loss in Vietnam, and the same cast of characters will be used to blame the loss of Iraq and Afghanistan.