The relationship between media and the audience are two-way communication. Audiences can greatly affect the production of media, because of their growing and picky demands and rational choice of the media. In Adorno’s article “how to look at TV”, he pointed out that," Modern audiences, although probably less capable of the artistic sublimation bred by tradition, have become shrewder in their demands for perfection of technique and for reliability of information, as well as in their desire for 'service'; and they have become more convinced of the consumers’ potential power over the producer, no matter whether this power is actually wielded.” In fact, audiences have become more and more powerful to put influence on TV producers. In response to the power that the audiences have, producers begin to produce TV programs that can attract the audiences’ attentions most or satisfy their curiosities or demands.
The situation becomes more obvious during election period. People tend to be more critical about politics issues or politicians during an election. They like questioning the candidates’ policies and challenging some candidates’ qualifications. “Smart” producers are sensitive to audiences’ needs and will question and challenge the candidates' qualifications on TV shows. The linked video provides a good example. As we can see in the video, when Palin became a Vice President candidate, a lot of talks could be loudly heard to question her qualification. People began to talk about her history, her background, her scandal, etc., no matter if the news about her was true or not. It is obvious that the majority of the public want to see her fail in the election. If most of the audience liked Palin and would like to see her succeed, the program would simply change to praise Palin’s greatness. She would be endorsed as a celebrity.
The rule that making efforts in the way which is in favor of the public can also be applied to political election. Gramsci criticized, "the Popular Universities for dispensing 'bit of knowledge' without taking account of the different needs and background of a working-class public.” Although his main concern was about education, the viewpoint he advocated was to pay attention to working-class’s demands. This concept is true in politics too. To win the election, both candidates must take account of different needs of the public and try to propose policies of the public’s favor to acquire maximum number of voting to them. However, in the reality, there is no uniform solution for all people. The party that the candidates belong to limits their policy choices. The linked video shows the debate between Obama and McCain on public health policy. Traditionally Democrats represent middle class and lower classes, while Republics represent higher classes. The different targets of classes force the candidates to choose different sides of the same dice. In the topic of this video, Obama’s proposal seems more likely to benefit the middle class and poor people, that is why he chose tax cut as a part of his policies.
Adorno pointed out that, “The total effect of the culture industry is one of anti-enlightenment. Enlightenment, that is the progressive technical domination of nature, becomes mass deception and is turned into a means for fettering consciousness. It impedes the development of autonomous, independent individuals who judge and decide consciously for themselves.” It is true for today’s media. Freedom of speech and justice more and more become a false appearance. Only mainstream messages can be heard by the public. Only sponsors’ interests can be fulfilled by the mainstream media. Individuals will be easily brainwashed by the overwhelming input and persuasive words. When individuals accept the input and give up their own otherwise more independent opinions, media successfully ruin the public’s consciousness. Realizing the real power of media, politicians are using media to promote themselves in an election campaign. In the TV advertisement, Obama has showed us how well he can do and what his plan will be. Through media (the television show, for example), he clearly and efficiently persuades many people to accept his viewpoints. In another video, his team uses the same technique to question his competitor – McCain. When all the similar programs intensively broadcast during an election, individuals are easily influenced and accept the input passively, because human nature shows that people are more likely to believe what they hear or see frequently.
Gramsci pointed out that, “The press is the most dynamic part of this ideological structure, but not the only one. Everything which influences or is able to influence public opinion, directly or indirectly, belongs to it: libraries, schools, associations and clubs of various kinds, even architecture and the layout and names of streets.” Different forms of media have different strength and overall serve as a complete system. New forms of the media can develop and expand the whole communication system. For example, this video shows that the Internet has become a more and more powerful place to express personal opinions, moreover, influence other people through its huge public accessibility. Unlike traditional media, the Internet forms a virtual community which has more freedom of speech than the real world. During the election, huge amount of videos were posted on the Internet. The Internet has become a more and more important battlefield for both political parties.
Assignment # 3:
http://www.bubbleply.com/player.aspx?pid=d838f68e-d92d-409f-86ba-3c6f5dfaa0fd
Assignment # 4:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DzJK6UPYeI
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
I was never a big proponent of the movement to legalize same sex marriage. In fact, up until the California State Supreme Court made its ruling, I was kind of against it; mostly because of the baggage that the word and the institution carry. However, I recognized the symbolic weight of the issue and soon got caught up in the battle when Proposition 8 made its shameful debut. Long before the first television advertisement had been aired, I had read somewhere that those who decide these things had chosen not to include gays and lesbians in the "No on Prop 8" (NOP) television ads based on the results of focus group research; instead the ads would feature the parents and friends of gay and lesbian couples. I thought at the time that that was a mistake and that the absence of gays and lesbians suggested the gay community had a sort of collective self-hatred , akin to the concept usually applied to psychologically messed up gay men. As the campaign has waged on, I've come to believe that there is at least a grain of truth to that.
The first salvo fired that I witnessed was the now-infamous "Whether you like it or not" TV ad featuring Gavin Newsom. I was resentfully impressed by its clever manipulation and sadly realized that this was going to be a dirty fight with no place for subtleties gleaned from focus groups. These religious nuts weren't fucking around; they were going after the heathens with all the righteousness their tiny souls could muster, whether Jesus liked it or not. The ad was effective because it tweaked the disgruntled public's frustration with politicians and then delivered its toxic package of lies designed to win votes through fear. Clearly, at least to me, an equally heavy-handed response was called for in order to refocus the debate away from the phony phantoms evoked by the "yes on Prop 8" (YOP) people and back to the discrimination that is the proposition's true intent.
Soon after the Newsom Ad debuted, I was tasked with a project in one of my classes that required using online resources to make a video addressing a current political issue. It was a no-brainer; I immediately began constructing a "No on Prop 8" television ad paralleling the struggle to legalize same-sex marriage with the Civil Rights movement using the most provocative images I could find. I spent countless hours finding and them learning how to use software that edited video, mixed audio and converted files in order to workaround technical incompatibilities and limitations in order to achieve my vision, compelled to perfect it in part by the fantasy that the "No on Prop 8" campaign might use it. By the time I finished it, though, the video was no longer as relevant and my critique of the Prop 8 campaign had changed. However, I learned two important things. The first is that in politics, timing is crucial; the window of opportunity to effectively respond to an opponent's allegations is small and getting smaller with new technology. The second is that I need a new computer, one that can handle big media files without freezing up or crashing every 20 minutes.
The focus of my critique of the Prop 8 campaign has now shifted to the YOP's claim that same-sex marriage will be taught in the classroom. Let me apologize beforehand if the following gets academ-icky, but I find it difficult to avoid when writing theoretical analyses (see, it's starting already). I mentioned earlier that the decision to exclude gays and lesbians from television ads might suggest that a form of self-hatred influenced the strategy adopted by the "No on Prop 8" campaign. Perhaps what some interpret as self-hatred is better understood in terms of false consciousness. In our culture, we are all socialized to believe that marriage is the ideal and the ultimate goal for intimate relationships; we are also socialized to believe that heterosexuality is the norm and, thus, good and that homosexuality is deviant and, thus, bad. As products of the dominant culture and subject to its ideology, gays and lesbians must confront an internalized bias against themselves in order to live emotionally healthy lives; but there has been very little discussion within the gay community about whether marriage is the best fit for gay relationships.
Yes, on the surface, Prop 8 is an issue of equal rights, but it is also about the desire for acceptance, and history shows that winning the former does not immediately bring about the latter. The NOP decision makers willingness to sacrifice gay visibility in order to win the election is troubling in that it suggests an failure to recognize that this is more than a legal issue. Far more troubling, though, is the failure of the campaign to challenge the notion that including same-sex marriage in classroom discussions is somehow harmful to children. Worst of all, however, is responding with ads denying that same-sex marriage will be taught in public schools if Prop 8 is defeated, in effect, tacitly affirming the ideologically inferior status of same-sex marriage and the danger it poses to children. While, individually, gays and lesbians may have recognized that they are not immune from being indoctrinated with the ideological bias against homosexuality, false consciousness still compels them to fight for the right to marry and prevents them from questioning why they fight for the right to conform to conventions such as marriage which manifest an ideology that considers them inferior; which is pretty much why I wasn't a big proponent of the effort to legalize same-sex marriage in the first place.
The first salvo fired that I witnessed was the now-infamous "Whether you like it or not" TV ad featuring Gavin Newsom. I was resentfully impressed by its clever manipulation and sadly realized that this was going to be a dirty fight with no place for subtleties gleaned from focus groups. These religious nuts weren't fucking around; they were going after the heathens with all the righteousness their tiny souls could muster, whether Jesus liked it or not. The ad was effective because it tweaked the disgruntled public's frustration with politicians and then delivered its toxic package of lies designed to win votes through fear. Clearly, at least to me, an equally heavy-handed response was called for in order to refocus the debate away from the phony phantoms evoked by the "yes on Prop 8" (YOP) people and back to the discrimination that is the proposition's true intent.
Soon after the Newsom Ad debuted, I was tasked with a project in one of my classes that required using online resources to make a video addressing a current political issue. It was a no-brainer; I immediately began constructing a "No on Prop 8" television ad paralleling the struggle to legalize same-sex marriage with the Civil Rights movement using the most provocative images I could find. I spent countless hours finding and them learning how to use software that edited video, mixed audio and converted files in order to workaround technical incompatibilities and limitations in order to achieve my vision, compelled to perfect it in part by the fantasy that the "No on Prop 8" campaign might use it. By the time I finished it, though, the video was no longer as relevant and my critique of the Prop 8 campaign had changed. However, I learned two important things. The first is that in politics, timing is crucial; the window of opportunity to effectively respond to an opponent's allegations is small and getting smaller with new technology. The second is that I need a new computer, one that can handle big media files without freezing up or crashing every 20 minutes.
The focus of my critique of the Prop 8 campaign has now shifted to the YOP's claim that same-sex marriage will be taught in the classroom. Let me apologize beforehand if the following gets academ-icky, but I find it difficult to avoid when writing theoretical analyses (see, it's starting already). I mentioned earlier that the decision to exclude gays and lesbians from television ads might suggest that a form of self-hatred influenced the strategy adopted by the "No on Prop 8" campaign. Perhaps what some interpret as self-hatred is better understood in terms of false consciousness. In our culture, we are all socialized to believe that marriage is the ideal and the ultimate goal for intimate relationships; we are also socialized to believe that heterosexuality is the norm and, thus, good and that homosexuality is deviant and, thus, bad. As products of the dominant culture and subject to its ideology, gays and lesbians must confront an internalized bias against themselves in order to live emotionally healthy lives; but there has been very little discussion within the gay community about whether marriage is the best fit for gay relationships.
Yes, on the surface, Prop 8 is an issue of equal rights, but it is also about the desire for acceptance, and history shows that winning the former does not immediately bring about the latter. The NOP decision makers willingness to sacrifice gay visibility in order to win the election is troubling in that it suggests an failure to recognize that this is more than a legal issue. Far more troubling, though, is the failure of the campaign to challenge the notion that including same-sex marriage in classroom discussions is somehow harmful to children. Worst of all, however, is responding with ads denying that same-sex marriage will be taught in public schools if Prop 8 is defeated, in effect, tacitly affirming the ideologically inferior status of same-sex marriage and the danger it poses to children. While, individually, gays and lesbians may have recognized that they are not immune from being indoctrinated with the ideological bias against homosexuality, false consciousness still compels them to fight for the right to marry and prevents them from questioning why they fight for the right to conform to conventions such as marriage which manifest an ideology that considers them inferior; which is pretty much why I wasn't a big proponent of the effort to legalize same-sex marriage in the first place.
The New Style of Election Attack Ads
I'm John McCain, and I endorsed this message.
Whether from John McCain, or one of hundreds of other politicians, this discarded phrase is certainly not the political food-for-thought most people seek to devour. However, the disclaimer appears before numerous radio and television political ads, and may be gaining in importance. A relatively underdeveloped style of campaign ad is emerging- one where the ad's supporter might be difficult to deduce. As campaign attack ads shift towards identity masking, and away from finger pointing and just plain making stuff up, the public's ability to make an informed decision weakens. Using the theories of Gramsci, Adorno, and Marx, a critical eye can be applied towards the latest style of political treachery.
The facilitation of a hegemonic culture caused by presenting the ideals of the bourgeoisie as "common sense" was identified by Gramsci decades ago. Yet, this still endures in terms of political campaign ads, perhaps stronger than ever. Identification with religious beliefs is a time-tested way of normalizing the public through a combination of fear and common sense. This controversial Elizabeth Dole 2008 North Carolina senate campaign commercial implies that voting for Dole's opponent means condemning oneself to a world of heathenism. Note the end of the commercial, where a photo of Dole's opponent is shown while a women's voice says, "there is no God." That's not the candidate's real voice- this commercial crosses way into the land of fraudulent representation. Using a website called Viddler.com, I further extrapolate on the fraudulent implications here. Please note, though, that the commercial is obviously against Dole's opponent, so the "I'm Elizabeth Dole, and I approved this message,” is not necessary to identify the true backer to the audience.
This wasn’t the case in several areas during the 2006 regional elections. Democrats claimed that Republicans were calling people in the middle of the night, with automated messages featuring the Democratic candidate’s name prominently. It is alleged that the goal was to trick people into believing Democrats were calling before angrily hanging up. By using this suspect tactic, campaign managers were banking on a notion popularized by Adorno. As Adorno put it in "How to Watch Television," "The message is invariably that of identification with the status quo." Specifically, by making their opponents appear outside the realms of normalization, they were hoping to appeal to the public’s sense of what is appropriate.
Implying one’s identity is that of one’s rival candidate is only one of the more ethically questionable ways to use an opponent’s persona against him or her. Another popular style is to use favorable endorsements as ammunition against a rival candidate. In a strong sense, this plays into Adorno’s notion of a “culture industry.” A notable quote from Adorno's "Culture Industry Reconsidered," reads, "the culture industry misuses its concern for the masses in order to duplicate, reinforce and strengthen their mentality, which it presumes is given and unchangeable." Rather than popularize sound bytes which express each candidate’s unique approach to the issues, news outlets frequently air clips of the candidates attacking each other on nothing more than party line differences, which adds nothing new to elections. I side with Adorno in believing that the media outlets must truly hoist the largest share of blame for this, as they choose which sound bytes to air.
As campaign ads continue to become more misleading and fraudulent, an overhaul of the campaign process might even by seen. As such, current election media campaigns face many of the same problems Marx saw with capitalism. Namely, the top-down information system purported by the media and the bourgeoisie could cause irreparable tensions in the entire system, eventually leading to collapse. Certainly, the beginning stages are evident, including voter disillusionment and general distrust of politicians. Also note the "related videos" for this clip. Right now, the system in place to oppose these ads is woefully inadequate. Campaign ads are often banned from the airwaves, but they can find resurrection in youtube.com, as is the case with Elizabeth Dole’s attack ad. In addition, the punishment of fines only serve to increase the distance between the opportunities of the wealthy and those of the common worker.
Taking this to a speculative level, one can humorously speculate on the future of campaign ads. For instance, in this self-made creation, an innocent campaign by a fun-loving children’s entertainer could easily be run into the ground by misrepresentation.
Whether from John McCain, or one of hundreds of other politicians, this discarded phrase is certainly not the political food-for-thought most people seek to devour. However, the disclaimer appears before numerous radio and television political ads, and may be gaining in importance. A relatively underdeveloped style of campaign ad is emerging- one where the ad's supporter might be difficult to deduce. As campaign attack ads shift towards identity masking, and away from finger pointing and just plain making stuff up, the public's ability to make an informed decision weakens. Using the theories of Gramsci, Adorno, and Marx, a critical eye can be applied towards the latest style of political treachery.
The facilitation of a hegemonic culture caused by presenting the ideals of the bourgeoisie as "common sense" was identified by Gramsci decades ago. Yet, this still endures in terms of political campaign ads, perhaps stronger than ever. Identification with religious beliefs is a time-tested way of normalizing the public through a combination of fear and common sense. This controversial Elizabeth Dole 2008 North Carolina senate campaign commercial implies that voting for Dole's opponent means condemning oneself to a world of heathenism. Note the end of the commercial, where a photo of Dole's opponent is shown while a women's voice says, "there is no God." That's not the candidate's real voice- this commercial crosses way into the land of fraudulent representation. Using a website called Viddler.com, I further extrapolate on the fraudulent implications here. Please note, though, that the commercial is obviously against Dole's opponent, so the "I'm Elizabeth Dole, and I approved this message,” is not necessary to identify the true backer to the audience.
This wasn’t the case in several areas during the 2006 regional elections. Democrats claimed that Republicans were calling people in the middle of the night, with automated messages featuring the Democratic candidate’s name prominently. It is alleged that the goal was to trick people into believing Democrats were calling before angrily hanging up. By using this suspect tactic, campaign managers were banking on a notion popularized by Adorno. As Adorno put it in "How to Watch Television," "The message is invariably that of identification with the status quo." Specifically, by making their opponents appear outside the realms of normalization, they were hoping to appeal to the public’s sense of what is appropriate.
Implying one’s identity is that of one’s rival candidate is only one of the more ethically questionable ways to use an opponent’s persona against him or her. Another popular style is to use favorable endorsements as ammunition against a rival candidate. In a strong sense, this plays into Adorno’s notion of a “culture industry.” A notable quote from Adorno's "Culture Industry Reconsidered," reads, "the culture industry misuses its concern for the masses in order to duplicate, reinforce and strengthen their mentality, which it presumes is given and unchangeable." Rather than popularize sound bytes which express each candidate’s unique approach to the issues, news outlets frequently air clips of the candidates attacking each other on nothing more than party line differences, which adds nothing new to elections. I side with Adorno in believing that the media outlets must truly hoist the largest share of blame for this, as they choose which sound bytes to air.
As campaign ads continue to become more misleading and fraudulent, an overhaul of the campaign process might even by seen. As such, current election media campaigns face many of the same problems Marx saw with capitalism. Namely, the top-down information system purported by the media and the bourgeoisie could cause irreparable tensions in the entire system, eventually leading to collapse. Certainly, the beginning stages are evident, including voter disillusionment and general distrust of politicians. Also note the "related videos" for this clip. Right now, the system in place to oppose these ads is woefully inadequate. Campaign ads are often banned from the airwaves, but they can find resurrection in youtube.com, as is the case with Elizabeth Dole’s attack ad. In addition, the punishment of fines only serve to increase the distance between the opportunities of the wealthy and those of the common worker.
Taking this to a speculative level, one can humorously speculate on the future of campaign ads. For instance, in this self-made creation, an innocent campaign by a fun-loving children’s entertainer could easily be run into the ground by misrepresentation.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Socialism: The Final Frontier of Smears
Smears.
Let's unpack that. What qualifies as a smear?
It's been oh about ten years since I've opened a written assignment with a dictionary definition (perhaps the ultimate five-paragraph-essay cliche), but over the course of this unbelievably gripping and tumultuous campaign, the use of semantics, language, and semiotics has glaringly underpinned the ideological landscape, exerting an unquantifiable influence on voter preferences and allegiance. Words, phrases, appellations--all have experienced a usurpation of their signified-s. This linguistic usurpation process is, of course, a tale as old as language itself, but all the more pressing considering the truly urgent nature of this election season. This way of looking at things is always relevant; everything begins and ends with language. So without lapsing into a game of Saussurian Mad-Libs, let me present the dictionary definition of smear:
3: a usually unsubstantiated charge or accusation against a person or organization —often used attributively (a smear campaign)(a smear job)
Being the armchair language cop that I strive to be, I was frustrated throughout the presidential campaign by the cavalier linguistic use of "negative campaigning" and "smears" and the resulting conflation of the two. T0 be fair--and in spite of Obama's pledge to avoid "negative campaigning"--campaigning necessitates negativity. But at what point does the requisite "negativity" devolve into "smear tactics"--i.e., pure lies?
The operative word is unsubstantiated.
Calling John McCain old may have been negative, but it wasn't a smear. Noting Obama's solidly liberal voting record may have been negative in some circles, but it wasn't a smear. Both are true.
Obama was the first presidential candidate to establish an organized response effort to smears, enabled of course by the Web and Obama's aggressive presence here. Some of the smears are concrete--if inexplicable--and can be traced to concrete, identifiable sources: an email, a calculated "offhand" remark by a seemingly distant surrogate. Smears seek to tap into conscious and unconscious fears that voters harbor regarding the securities that our government pledges to sustain. One of the latest, and last, smears lodged against Obama is that he is...dun dun dun...a SOCIALIST:
Socialism and its even worse-reputed sibling, Communism, are two of the dirtiest "-ists" in the American political vocabulary, narrowly behind "terrorist" as the most hysteria-provoking threats, either existential or actual, to our freedoms (to borrow dear old Retarded Cowboy's parlance).
Obama was smeared as both during this campaign, but in the 11th hour (and relatively effectively, if the last-minute tightening of polls count for anything) he was accused in all seriousness of experimenting with "the s-word", first by Samuel Wertzbacher the Unlicensed Contractor and Comically Transparent Manufactured McCain Pawn a.k.a Joe the Plumber (FF to about :40 for the s-word):
and then in turn by John the Senator's running mate Sarah the Dim-Witted Fundamentalist Demagogue:
and finally by the Candidate himself (FF to about 0:35):
and in turn by a cacophony of McCain and/or Fox spokesbots who somehow managed to equate a progressive tax policy--a run-of-the-mill Democratic platform that McCain's hero Teddy Roosevelt also advocated--with socialism.
The irony, however unsurprising, is that few of the pundits and pawns have much concept of what socialism actually means. Rather, "socialism", according to their definition, is a broad-to-the-point-of-meaningless condition characterized by taxation, "big government" and therefore some vague imposition of uniformity on the masses and stripping of personal liberty, identity and self-expression. Socialism is the very antithesis of what we purport to value most in America--personal freedom. Still, over the past eight years we have allowed unprecedented, unchecked powers of domestic surveillance and hyper-exceptionalist military aggression as a response to the other Bogeyman: Islamic extremism.
We detest and fear the communist Cuban government such that it's actually illegal for U.S. citizens to travel there. (No other country shares this distinction.)
Clearly, America has an extremely complex and tormented relationship with the waves of Marxist influence that we've seen over the years--whether real or paranoid fantasy.
But that was after World War II. Consider this amazing 1932 Betty Boop cartoon. The notion of a classless utopia has surfaced in often odd and surprising ways (this is Assignment #3):
And here's my Assignment 4, A Slacker's Guide to Socialism in American Political Discourse, also embedded below.
Let's unpack that. What qualifies as a smear?
It's been oh about ten years since I've opened a written assignment with a dictionary definition (perhaps the ultimate five-paragraph-essay cliche), but over the course of this unbelievably gripping and tumultuous campaign, the use of semantics, language, and semiotics has glaringly underpinned the ideological landscape, exerting an unquantifiable influence on voter preferences and allegiance. Words, phrases, appellations--all have experienced a usurpation of their signified-s. This linguistic usurpation process is, of course, a tale as old as language itself, but all the more pressing considering the truly urgent nature of this election season. This way of looking at things is always relevant; everything begins and ends with language. So without lapsing into a game of Saussurian Mad-Libs, let me present the dictionary definition of smear:
3: a usually unsubstantiated charge or accusation against a person or organization —often used attributively (a smear campaign)(a smear job)
Being the armchair language cop that I strive to be, I was frustrated throughout the presidential campaign by the cavalier linguistic use of "negative campaigning" and "smears" and the resulting conflation of the two. T0 be fair--and in spite of Obama's pledge to avoid "negative campaigning"--campaigning necessitates negativity. But at what point does the requisite "negativity" devolve into "smear tactics"--i.e., pure lies?
The operative word is unsubstantiated.
Calling John McCain old may have been negative, but it wasn't a smear. Noting Obama's solidly liberal voting record may have been negative in some circles, but it wasn't a smear. Both are true.
Obama was the first presidential candidate to establish an organized response effort to smears, enabled of course by the Web and Obama's aggressive presence here. Some of the smears are concrete--if inexplicable--and can be traced to concrete, identifiable sources: an email, a calculated "offhand" remark by a seemingly distant surrogate. Smears seek to tap into conscious and unconscious fears that voters harbor regarding the securities that our government pledges to sustain. One of the latest, and last, smears lodged against Obama is that he is...dun dun dun...a SOCIALIST:
Socialism and its even worse-reputed sibling, Communism, are two of the dirtiest "-ists" in the American political vocabulary, narrowly behind "terrorist" as the most hysteria-provoking threats, either existential or actual, to our freedoms (to borrow dear old Retarded Cowboy's parlance).
Obama was smeared as both during this campaign, but in the 11th hour (and relatively effectively, if the last-minute tightening of polls count for anything) he was accused in all seriousness of experimenting with "the s-word", first by Samuel Wertzbacher the Unlicensed Contractor and Comically Transparent Manufactured McCain Pawn a.k.a Joe the Plumber (FF to about :40 for the s-word):
and then in turn by John the Senator's running mate Sarah the Dim-Witted Fundamentalist Demagogue:
and finally by the Candidate himself (FF to about 0:35):
and in turn by a cacophony of McCain and/or Fox spokesbots who somehow managed to equate a progressive tax policy--a run-of-the-mill Democratic platform that McCain's hero Teddy Roosevelt also advocated--with socialism.
The irony, however unsurprising, is that few of the pundits and pawns have much concept of what socialism actually means. Rather, "socialism", according to their definition, is a broad-to-the-point-of-meaningless condition characterized by taxation, "big government" and therefore some vague imposition of uniformity on the masses and stripping of personal liberty, identity and self-expression. Socialism is the very antithesis of what we purport to value most in America--personal freedom. Still, over the past eight years we have allowed unprecedented, unchecked powers of domestic surveillance and hyper-exceptionalist military aggression as a response to the other Bogeyman: Islamic extremism.
We detest and fear the communist Cuban government such that it's actually illegal for U.S. citizens to travel there. (No other country shares this distinction.)
Clearly, America has an extremely complex and tormented relationship with the waves of Marxist influence that we've seen over the years--whether real or paranoid fantasy.
But that was after World War II. Consider this amazing 1932 Betty Boop cartoon. The notion of a classless utopia has surfaced in often odd and surprising ways (this is Assignment #3):
And here's my Assignment 4, A Slacker's Guide to Socialism in American Political Discourse, also embedded below.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Manipulation, Election and a Video(tape) Commercial
Assignment# 2 (First of the trilogy) - updated -
The United States is not the only country that suffers from an economic recession, but also countries all over the world suffer from the breakdown of the global economy. The worst moment of the recession started with the failure of credit system (Credit-Crunch) and it first occurred in the United States. Obama argues that George W. Bush has failed to create a successful and steady economy since Bush’s first election in 2000, which led to an economic recession. Although this devastating economic situation has not destroyed or will not destroy capitalism, it has started to change the way it works. Eventually, some of the purely capitalist policies will have more socialist content. For example, many countries have already intervened in economic markets and have sponsored major banks’ debts worth billions of American dollars. On the other hand, economy is not the only problem in the United States. President Bush could not handle the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks successfully. Now, the United States is seen as a reason for instability and an illegal war maker in the international arena. I believe the 2008 election has the potential for Americans to change their country's image in the international arena and to create a stronger economy. For the upcoming election, Barack Obama looks like a charismatic and an intellectual leader who can heal the wounds of his country’s problematic economy and bully image. It was a rocky road for him to become the democratic candidate. Furthermore, he has had to fight against McCain’s unethical campaign. In a few days, we will see if America has given him the right to govern them.
Recent polls show us that most voters care more about the economy than terrorism or security issues. However, McCain’s election campaign heavily depends on promoting the idea that Obama cannot find a successful way to deal with security issues. Instead of focusing on the economy for his election campaign, he focuses on his competitor’s inability to deal with security issues. Keep in mind; Gramsci argues that people are in favor of reasons for their own good like economy today. People (voters) want a ruling class that can create wealth for the citizens. Obama understands that trend and focuses on the economy as the first priority. Additionally, national security is a very important subject in his political agenda. Obama usually combine the economical issues with security issues in his speeches, because he he thinks that national security spending is affecting the economy in a very bad way. Gitlin argues that consumers buy a product for its promoted qualities, because they think that they acquire those qualities. If we see Obama as a product to be sold to consumers (voters), then his message (political decisions related to security, economy, etc...) would be the qualities. Voters may want to buy (vote for him) Obama in order to acquire his qualities (politics).
In order to keep the status quo of electing a republican for the white house, McCain aired commercials that point out how Obama is unable to govern a country. Some media companies even tried to show Obama as a candidate, who is weak to fight against terrorism because of being a Muslim. Although he is not a Muslim, as he stated several times, relating a religion to terrorism was also a disgraceful approach. Gramsci believes that media are in favor of a status quo. Then, should we expect that media in the United States want another republican in office again? Even though there are media firms hating Obama as I mentioned before, I believe the answer to that question is no! Media companies are always trying to make money and unfortunately in last 8 years the economy did not go well. Today, media companies expect a change for the economy, which is Obama’s focus in his campaign. The change can bring the old status quo of Clinton’s era, which led media companies to generate great amounts of profits.
Finally, in every election period most candidates try to manipulate voters through commercials. They do it, and they will continue doing that. Politicians like Obama should not get frustrated with that kind of campaigns and they should continue on their way in order to create a better standard of living for their citizens.
Here is the video for assignment#3 (CLICK) (Second part of the trilogy)
Here is the video for assignment #4 (Last part of the trilogy):
- Please be patient, it will load the video soon -
In case it does not work on the blog, watch it from here.
The United States is not the only country that suffers from an economic recession, but also countries all over the world suffer from the breakdown of the global economy. The worst moment of the recession started with the failure of credit system (Credit-Crunch) and it first occurred in the United States. Obama argues that George W. Bush has failed to create a successful and steady economy since Bush’s first election in 2000, which led to an economic recession. Although this devastating economic situation has not destroyed or will not destroy capitalism, it has started to change the way it works. Eventually, some of the purely capitalist policies will have more socialist content. For example, many countries have already intervened in economic markets and have sponsored major banks’ debts worth billions of American dollars. On the other hand, economy is not the only problem in the United States. President Bush could not handle the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks successfully. Now, the United States is seen as a reason for instability and an illegal war maker in the international arena. I believe the 2008 election has the potential for Americans to change their country's image in the international arena and to create a stronger economy. For the upcoming election, Barack Obama looks like a charismatic and an intellectual leader who can heal the wounds of his country’s problematic economy and bully image. It was a rocky road for him to become the democratic candidate. Furthermore, he has had to fight against McCain’s unethical campaign. In a few days, we will see if America has given him the right to govern them.
Recent polls show us that most voters care more about the economy than terrorism or security issues. However, McCain’s election campaign heavily depends on promoting the idea that Obama cannot find a successful way to deal with security issues. Instead of focusing on the economy for his election campaign, he focuses on his competitor’s inability to deal with security issues. Keep in mind; Gramsci argues that people are in favor of reasons for their own good like economy today. People (voters) want a ruling class that can create wealth for the citizens. Obama understands that trend and focuses on the economy as the first priority. Additionally, national security is a very important subject in his political agenda. Obama usually combine the economical issues with security issues in his speeches, because he he thinks that national security spending is affecting the economy in a very bad way. Gitlin argues that consumers buy a product for its promoted qualities, because they think that they acquire those qualities. If we see Obama as a product to be sold to consumers (voters), then his message (political decisions related to security, economy, etc...) would be the qualities. Voters may want to buy (vote for him) Obama in order to acquire his qualities (politics).
In order to keep the status quo of electing a republican for the white house, McCain aired commercials that point out how Obama is unable to govern a country. Some media companies even tried to show Obama as a candidate, who is weak to fight against terrorism because of being a Muslim. Although he is not a Muslim, as he stated several times, relating a religion to terrorism was also a disgraceful approach. Gramsci believes that media are in favor of a status quo. Then, should we expect that media in the United States want another republican in office again? Even though there are media firms hating Obama as I mentioned before, I believe the answer to that question is no! Media companies are always trying to make money and unfortunately in last 8 years the economy did not go well. Today, media companies expect a change for the economy, which is Obama’s focus in his campaign. The change can bring the old status quo of Clinton’s era, which led media companies to generate great amounts of profits.
Finally, in every election period most candidates try to manipulate voters through commercials. They do it, and they will continue doing that. Politicians like Obama should not get frustrated with that kind of campaigns and they should continue on their way in order to create a better standard of living for their citizens.
Here is the video for assignment#3 (CLICK) (Second part of the trilogy)
Here is the video for assignment #4 (Last part of the trilogy):
- Please be patient, it will load the video soon -
In case it does not work on the blog, watch it from here.
Why Obama for Asian Americans?
Culture is the crucial reason. In former elections, many voters solely supported candidates based on policy stance, but now, many see Obama as a beginning to a new era of diversity in America. They identify themselves with his policies and his culture. This year, Obama may collect 52% of Asian-American votes. (Click here) When confronted with questions about their devotion to Obama, supporters seem excited about his opportunity to lead change. As the media continues to closely follow the election, many Asian-Americans are confident in an Obama victory. They, like other Americans, are concerned about the candidates’ policies on various economic, social and health-care issues, but many express their feeling as “just seeing his name on the candidates list is a change.” For many Asian-Americans, seeing hope for Obama in this election helps them see hope for their own lives, with Obama representing a huge step for diversity. Many Asian-Americans who were hesitant to vote in prior elections, frustrated with the lack of choice, now vote for a single candidate, including his background and life experience. Some supporters even identify with Obama's upbringing in an Asian country. (See video here)
Gramsci pointed out in his article saying that culture is Culture is an inevitable property that everyone has. A person’s culture is encoded in the way one speaks and acts; culture nurtures opinions and shapes the way one perceives the world. These voters see Obama as themselves, and the crucial factor that Obama brings is his culture. Though Obama is not Asian, he represents a mainstream America where people have different cultural identities and backgrounds. Actress Kelly Hu, speaking for AsianAmericansForObama.com, finds that Obama is the only candidate with whom she has a personal connection. Asian-Americans feel that Obama's experience living in Asia gives him a unique understanding of Asian culture.(Watch video here)
Because of cultural differences, McCain cannot claim a good standing with Asian-American voters, and is not widely supported among the minority. However, with a large number of Asian-Americans vote for Obama, there are voices from the opposite side. There are still people who are afraid of “change”, questioning the direction of this change and whether this is a better option for America, and remain standing with the Republican candidate. Early in the Democratic primary race, Obama and Clinton's approval ratings were split. A Japanese-American revealed in an interview that many Japanese-Americans feel uncomfortable with change, and leaned more with Clinton due to familiarity. Within their culture “change” is akin to breaking the rules, and is not generally celebrated. (Click here)
When we delve closer into the importance of culture, we see that a vote for Hilary Clinton is not only about familiarity, but that it also encompasses their own positive life experiences during the Clinton Administration. When looking at the support for Obama, we see that his culture satisfies an identity that other candidates do not. Voters will choose who they believe best represents them. They will choose from who they are.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
An appeal to stop using children in political campaigns
This is assignment # 4 (number 3 of the trilogy):
Here is the link online too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXP6qsk40ms
Here is the link online too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXP6qsk40ms
Using Children in Political Media
Here is the assignment #3 (number 2 of the trilogy) where we must "talk back" to an existing piece of political media.
Now that we have the access to the tools, what are we going to do with them?
link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsjjYUcSvGI
T.
Now that we have the access to the tools, what are we going to do with them?
link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsjjYUcSvGI
T.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
A Cycle of Abuse: Children in Politics
(For the purpose of satisfying this assignment) I will do something that I hate doing. I will take part in the perpetuation of an exercise that I am going to criticize negatively. It reminds me of previous societal arguments like, “how can someone dislike pornography when one hasn’t seen it”? or “how can one be anti-TV if one doesn’t know what is on it?” To make my point I must show examples of what offends me.
When elephants fight the grass gets trampled. This is happening when the innocent members of our society are used as pawns in our election brawls. If the members of society were aware of such atrocities I believe they would stop but they continue the cycle subconsciously or unconsciously (reference to Marx and Gramsci).
Look at this:
Why put images of children and children’s voices on the media in this fashion? Could adults not ask? Of course they could. But someone somewhere thought that having children ask would be cute or attractive. It is an abuse of our children to have them appear to say words which are really not their own. This is the powerful adults of society using the psychological implications of the innocent child for political gain. And this brings the child into the dominant hegemony before being aware enough to think for him or herself (reference Gramsci).
Look at this:
This seemingly benign use of children is an indoctrination tool being used on the children and then being presented to the public as a spectacle.
Someone in the public then chose to subvert the message through juxtaposing symbols resulting in a collison montage:
We get the point. Don’t we? This media producer sees the correlation between using our children to propose Obama’s presidency and using them to propose Fascism. But who is abused and who is the abuser? Is this how we hoped the shifting of the power of media to the masses would be used? (reference Adorno) Perhaps some would see fun in this juxtaposition. I see only abuse of the meek in both productions. Through my intuition I feel sick about this use of children in this new “free access” media. (reference Gitlin) When the powerless are used by the powerful there is something off whether it is on Youtube or Network TV.
I see the, sometimes ignorant, use of the media by adults to complicate and intellectualize that which should be left to the beauty of nature. Let the kids alone. Let them enjoy their undetermined youth. Should we parade them?
No, we should not parade children in political campaigns. Yes, these depict beautiful moments. Beautiful private moments forever stained by discussions of adult motives:
Have these professionals viewed this footage? Could they continue if they had? How can they call themselves serious professionals? Perhaps I ask for too much. Perhaps they are producing the media which they believe to be desirable? And who are they? Adults. (In the conventional sense of the word)
At least Michelle Obama thinks she should protect her children’s privacy. This is a noble cause but not the whole truth. While talking about protecting their privacy, we see the children in larger than life images behind the hosts of The View:
Children are not intellectual adults. They may have the capacity to ask many pertinent questions (even if done innocently). This use of children is an appeal to the psychological aspect of our fondness for children. Political candidates and commentators use children for these purposes, and it seems that they don’t really care if it has a negative impact on the children’s lives. Why not leave them alone until they can decide for themselves?
In closing I will post another video. Images of young children are paired with a child’s voice-over. Imagine as you listen and view if the images were the same and either John Mc Cain’s or Barack Obama’s voice was the voice-over.
Well, how did you do imagining our (political) adults as the voice instead of the child? Would it have the same impact? What if the video did not invade the privacy of the children in the footage and just showed Obama or McCain explaining their opinion? A novel idea perhaps? Have the candidates speak straight.
I suggest we get the children out of political fighting. Maybe the candidates will have to come up with more than a 10 second sound-bite.
Too much grass is trampled while elephants fight.
Too many children are having “their” politics spoon fed to them before they can chew hard and spit out the stale bits.
When elephants fight the grass gets trampled. This is happening when the innocent members of our society are used as pawns in our election brawls. If the members of society were aware of such atrocities I believe they would stop but they continue the cycle subconsciously or unconsciously (reference to Marx and Gramsci).
Look at this:
Why put images of children and children’s voices on the media in this fashion? Could adults not ask? Of course they could. But someone somewhere thought that having children ask would be cute or attractive. It is an abuse of our children to have them appear to say words which are really not their own. This is the powerful adults of society using the psychological implications of the innocent child for political gain. And this brings the child into the dominant hegemony before being aware enough to think for him or herself (reference Gramsci).
Look at this:
This seemingly benign use of children is an indoctrination tool being used on the children and then being presented to the public as a spectacle.
Someone in the public then chose to subvert the message through juxtaposing symbols resulting in a collison montage:
We get the point. Don’t we? This media producer sees the correlation between using our children to propose Obama’s presidency and using them to propose Fascism. But who is abused and who is the abuser? Is this how we hoped the shifting of the power of media to the masses would be used? (reference Adorno) Perhaps some would see fun in this juxtaposition. I see only abuse of the meek in both productions. Through my intuition I feel sick about this use of children in this new “free access” media. (reference Gitlin) When the powerless are used by the powerful there is something off whether it is on Youtube or Network TV.
I see the, sometimes ignorant, use of the media by adults to complicate and intellectualize that which should be left to the beauty of nature. Let the kids alone. Let them enjoy their undetermined youth. Should we parade them?
No, we should not parade children in political campaigns. Yes, these depict beautiful moments. Beautiful private moments forever stained by discussions of adult motives:
Have these professionals viewed this footage? Could they continue if they had? How can they call themselves serious professionals? Perhaps I ask for too much. Perhaps they are producing the media which they believe to be desirable? And who are they? Adults. (In the conventional sense of the word)
At least Michelle Obama thinks she should protect her children’s privacy. This is a noble cause but not the whole truth. While talking about protecting their privacy, we see the children in larger than life images behind the hosts of The View:
Children are not intellectual adults. They may have the capacity to ask many pertinent questions (even if done innocently). This use of children is an appeal to the psychological aspect of our fondness for children. Political candidates and commentators use children for these purposes, and it seems that they don’t really care if it has a negative impact on the children’s lives. Why not leave them alone until they can decide for themselves?
In closing I will post another video. Images of young children are paired with a child’s voice-over. Imagine as you listen and view if the images were the same and either John Mc Cain’s or Barack Obama’s voice was the voice-over.
Well, how did you do imagining our (political) adults as the voice instead of the child? Would it have the same impact? What if the video did not invade the privacy of the children in the footage and just showed Obama or McCain explaining their opinion? A novel idea perhaps? Have the candidates speak straight.
I suggest we get the children out of political fighting. Maybe the candidates will have to come up with more than a 10 second sound-bite.
Too much grass is trampled while elephants fight.
Too many children are having “their” politics spoon fed to them before they can chew hard and spit out the stale bits.
Monday, October 27, 2008
It's Time For Some Campaigning!
Every four years, citizens of the United States get bombarded with advertisements, campaign stops, front-page articles, debates on television, etc. All of these 'beneficial' resources are ways to provide the voter with the knowledge that they need to make a valid decision for a candidate. Based on the information they receive, combined with their own personal beliefs, a voter should have all that they need to vote for the candidate they believe will be best for the country. One could argue that there are more media outlets available that criticize, or poke fun, at the upcoming election, as opposed to providing the voter with the information necessary to make an informed decision. The press acts as an outlet for this information. However, there are plenty of other 'viral' outlets that provide information as well.
I believe that for this election, the campaigns have been plagued with hegemonic ideals. The press is the 'delivery boy' for these ruling elites. We have seen countless stories--I believe more in this election than any other--about prominent politicians, officials, and even celebrities who support a certain candidate. We also see that trusted networks can promote a bias in the election. Raymond Williams' definition of hegemony proposes ideas further than the ideology of manipulation by ruling elites. He mentions that it "is a whole body of practices and expectations, over the whole of living: our senses and assignments of energy, our shaping perceptions of ourselves and our world" (Goldman, p. 364).
The way that new media outlets--blogs, vlogs, and websites where you can upload videos such as YouTube--are being used in this election falls right in line with Goldman's idea of managed critique. To viewers, these videos may be seen as pushing back against ruling elites. Goldman would argue differently. These ruling elites have no problem with these outlets being available because any form of "doubt concerning the status quo is employed to steer the viewing audience back towards the reaffirmation of established forms of conventional morality" (Goldman, p.368). Allowing these outlets to continue pushing anti-McCain, or anti-Obama videos, may in fact do something good for society: produce more voters. If this is a possible outcome, then the possibility that managed critique is working is true. Dry, boring advertisements may not be the answer anymore. Perhaps cheery ads provide more for voters. Either way, when these videos are uploaded and viewed, it may appear like a challenge to the status quo, but it really is supporting ideas of elites through this idea of managed critique. Viewers think they are informed, and will head to the polls.
More voters may head to the polls on November 4, but are the voters really getting informed about their candidates and what these candidates plan to do if they are elected? It appears that more of the ads we have seen lately have been attacks on the other candidate. This is an interesting way to inform the voters. It provides no other message than the fact that the candidate who sponsors the message will not be like their opposition if elected. Ruling elites see this as a message nonetheless.
Whatever form of advertising is used to support, attack, or denounce a certain candidate, I've concluded that the media texts I've discussed are examples of managed critique and that they reinforce the status quo. Perhaps the best thing to do to facilitate change would be to not vote for these ruling elites at all.
I believe that for this election, the campaigns have been plagued with hegemonic ideals. The press is the 'delivery boy' for these ruling elites. We have seen countless stories--I believe more in this election than any other--about prominent politicians, officials, and even celebrities who support a certain candidate. We also see that trusted networks can promote a bias in the election. Raymond Williams' definition of hegemony proposes ideas further than the ideology of manipulation by ruling elites. He mentions that it "is a whole body of practices and expectations, over the whole of living: our senses and assignments of energy, our shaping perceptions of ourselves and our world" (Goldman, p. 364).
The way that new media outlets--blogs, vlogs, and websites where you can upload videos such as YouTube--are being used in this election falls right in line with Goldman's idea of managed critique. To viewers, these videos may be seen as pushing back against ruling elites. Goldman would argue differently. These ruling elites have no problem with these outlets being available because any form of "doubt concerning the status quo is employed to steer the viewing audience back towards the reaffirmation of established forms of conventional morality" (Goldman, p.368). Allowing these outlets to continue pushing anti-McCain, or anti-Obama videos, may in fact do something good for society: produce more voters. If this is a possible outcome, then the possibility that managed critique is working is true. Dry, boring advertisements may not be the answer anymore. Perhaps cheery ads provide more for voters. Either way, when these videos are uploaded and viewed, it may appear like a challenge to the status quo, but it really is supporting ideas of elites through this idea of managed critique. Viewers think they are informed, and will head to the polls.
More voters may head to the polls on November 4, but are the voters really getting informed about their candidates and what these candidates plan to do if they are elected? It appears that more of the ads we have seen lately have been attacks on the other candidate. This is an interesting way to inform the voters. It provides no other message than the fact that the candidate who sponsors the message will not be like their opposition if elected. Ruling elites see this as a message nonetheless.
Whatever form of advertising is used to support, attack, or denounce a certain candidate, I've concluded that the media texts I've discussed are examples of managed critique and that they reinforce the status quo. Perhaps the best thing to do to facilitate change would be to not vote for these ruling elites at all.
Wax on, wax off. Wane on, wane off.
It's time-to-elect-a-president season again. At this happy hour, my mind ponders on Theodor Adorno's “culture industry” idea. Right now, this industry, which exists for consumption by the masses, at the height of its influence. As seekers of power, politicians know the potency of radio and television. Through its inherent ordering of reality, “[t]he culture industry turns into public relations, the manufacturing of 'goodwill' per se... It proclaims: you shall conform, without instruction as to what; conform to that which exists anyway, and to that which everyone thinks anyway as a reflex of its power and omnipresence.” (Adorno, T. "The Culture Industry Reconsidered", from "The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture"
London: Routledge, 1991)
Adorno believed that everything carried by the culture industry becomes a commodity. When politicians use the media, they are selling themselves and must contort themselves into a new shape to fit the medium. In 2008, Sarah Palin has taken this to a new level, changing from appearance to appearance, playing the character demanded of her on whatever occasion. (It would be no surprise to learn that McCain's campaign team chose Palin for those very chameleon-like abilities.)
See for yourself Palin's waxing and waning across appearences. Who was Palin trying to be on...?
+ September 3rd: At the Republican National Convention, Palin stands before a large live crowd as a confident, strong leader, aligning herself with an independent maverick.
Palin Type: The Leader
+ September 23rd: The nation winces during Palin's interview with CBS's Katie Couric when the VP nominee cannot name a Supreme Court case other than Roe v Wade and says that Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience. Why does Palin look so dumb? Perhaps she's pandering to the Joe Sixpacks out there.
Palin Type: The Lowballer
+ October 3rd: After Couric, the nation doubts Palin's chances against Joe Biden in the VP debate, meaning that even a modest performance will mean a win of sorts for Palin (in politics, this is called “lowballing”: setting low expectations). At the debate, Palin mixes her “gosh, darn it” persona, with well-timed confident speech.
Palin Type: The Hocky Mom
+ October 18th: After several wildly popular Palin impersonations by comedian Tina Fey, the real thing appears alongside her doppleganger on Saturday Night Live with an unsurprising non-comedian-grade performance. Palin confidently faces her liberal detractors, strong and smug to her supporters.
Palin Type: The Smug One
+ October 26th: During a speech, Palin responds to the fuss over alleged purchases of wardrobe items amounting to $150,000 using taxpayers' money. Here, the VP nominee depicts herself as the local girl who's into clothes and rings from the same stores that you and me frequent (note: I don't buy clothes or rings).
Palin Type: The Shopper-Next-Door
Adorno wrote that what the culture industry paints as new is really a repackaging of the old. By this approach, Palin's hockey mom persona might be new to the political stage, but her ultimate goal is old: like me, relate to me, elect me.
------------------------------------------
See here for Assignment 3.
See here for Assignment 4.
“Is That A Pistol In Your Pocket, Or Are You Just Glad To See Me?”* Gunslinger or American Idol—Caribou Barbie is Hot!
At the drop of a hat, no matter what the target, they both shoot: wolves, moose, friend and foe. Voilà, the VP hero à la Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin.
Who cares who the VP is anyway, as long as we get to keep our guns? From the point of view of the NRA, the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution—the right to bear arms—might even trump freedom of speech, assembly, religion and the press.
In “We Build America,” Gitlin identifies that the automobile is one of the most potent devices that advertisers use to exploit the American romance with power objects—metaphors for personal freedom, rugged individualism, and desirable social status. We create these icons all the time, even in politics, where they quickly become surrogates for critical thinking. As long as we wrap the particular political figure or organization in the American flag and other symbols of American virtue, we don’t have to think about what the politicians really represent—their political ideology, policies and agenda as well as their social values. An equally commanding power object is the gun, embodied in another staple American icon, the lone gunman who incarnates in many forms: the heroic hunter-explorer, the moralistic self-righteous cop, the Samurai gun slinger, and the lonesome cowboy or cowgirl. Politicians and political candidates are routinely packaged with stock symbols that connote a figure of strong moral character, a stalwart protector and defender, a self-sufficient and unshakable leader, and above all, a courageous patriot. “On the surface… commercials … manipulate the romance of freedom in order to sell automobiles” (Gitlin, 1986). The metaphor of the gun has been deeply embedded within the American psyche since the early years of our Republic and our aggressive Westward expansion.
Currently, both the Republican and Democratic candidates have adopted, as part of their public aura, particular class values that cut to the proletarian facet of the American persona. Every Joe six-pack and hockey mom can identify with these archetypes; and, in their present mode, they are all products of what Adorno recognized as the culture industry. But wait a minute, there might be a new sheriff in town!
Whether it’s the President or Vice-President, this militaristic vigilante type attitude affects the presidency and the country as a whole. Very few American Presidents have been successful who’ve held an anti-war, anti-violence position. Jimmy Carter ‘s lack of aggressiveness as “commander in chief” of the military was viewed by many as wimpy. Whether Democrat or Republican, it doesn’t seem to matter—if you are not ready to take up the gun, you are considered weak and un-American.
Palin was a nobody that no one remembered until she was recruited and coached by a Republican organization called GOPAC (“Preparing a New Generation of Republicans to Lead America”) for a political career in the same way that young, unknown wannabe entertainers are shaped and displayed on American Idol, creating the next blockbuster entertainment sensation—and you even get to vote! It’s an uncanny how similar American Idol is to the phenomenon of grooming politicians for elected office. First, a group of “experts” with a semblance of authority selects individuals they think are good material. Those who pass the audition are then appropriately tutored and presented to the public in well-scripted events, much like the coming out parties for debutantes. Finally, we the people get to cast our vote yea or nay. It’s all part of the art and science of marketing in which politicians are regarded in the same light as every other commercial product. Spending $150,000 on Governor Palin’s wardrobe and makeup is nothing new. Every politician with ambitions beyond municipal office must consent to be airbrushed by PR specialists in order to become consumer friendly—not only a clean and shiny package at the political check out counter, but a personage palatable to the culture makers: if the culture makers are displeased, the candidates—their public personas—will be shredded and sent back to the media makeover department.
Yes, icons of all stripes are now media products just like Madonna or Hannah Montana, with the potential for selling a variety of associated accessories conveniently included in the ideology box: guns, beer, identity, power. In the context of political marketing, it is definitely more important to spend $22,000 on Sarah’s hair and makeup, fashioning a faux feminist image, than educating her about foreign policy, the constitution, the law, social and domestic policy, history and how the federal government actually works.
Gitlin was speaking about car commercials, but the same methodology and technology are used to advertise politics and politicians. You begin with someone who is a “blank”, an unknown quantity, and turn them into an American idol, an archetype that embodies personal freedom, personal power, virtue and apple pie with all the trimmings. And one of the most enduringly popular archetypes is the gun slinging Dirty Harry
or Annie Oakley. Gramsci would probably ask us to decipher the meta-message: as long as you can keep your gun, you don’t need to worry about educating your children, health care, your job, teenage pregnancy or the poor. A comfortable, false sense of security quells your longing to rise up, protest and question the powers that be. What is being reinforced and rewarded is the attitude that it’s every man for himself: we don’t need solidarity if we can just look after ourselves.
As long as you feel a sense of personal power because you can own a lethal weapon, you don’t have to align yourself with others to improve your community or change the government. This is one of the traditional ways that the power elites have learned to divert the attention of the masses from thinking, speaking, discussing and acting together. Gramsci might acknowledge that the right to bear arms is indeed empowering, but only slightly. Even though every citizen has this right, it is a freedom that is exaggerated and romanticized to the point that it is felt to be the cornerstone of the foundation of our American democracy—as if all of our rights and freedoms are balanced on this singular one and, if we loose it, we will be at the mercy of the government and criminals. But in reality, what does this right confer upon us other than the power to kill an intruder, our neighbor, our boss or massacre our fellow workers, students and teachers.
The symbolic resonance of the gun ripples through our culture at every level and our political idols and leaders embrace it. A modern exemplar was Ronald Reagan, the iconic, modern, cowboy-actor President. With First Lady Nancy Reagan, they were the veritable Roy Rogers
and Dale Evans of the American Presidency. Now we have John McCain = soldier, a professional gun slinger in defense of flag and country; Sarah Palin = Amazon huntress, a Caribou Barbie ready to act and protect; and Dick Cheney = our supreme, predatory hawk, a true believer in the power of the big gun, the primacy of overwhelming military strength, the Bush administration’s primary strategy for driving a foreign policy whose goal is to maintain our global hegemony by any means necessary. Dick Cheney and his possible understudy, Sarah Palin, represent America’s number one sheriff.
Come to think of it, who should be the one with a finger on the button? Well, gosh, it ought to be someone who knows how to shoot and how to get the job done!
In his final days as President, Eisenhower gave a clear admonition that has gone unheeded—to reign in the military industrial complex. Socialists—not the Russian ones—have always warned against the consolidation of power between government, business and the military, and characterize it as the hallmark of totalitarianism.
Is it possible that we give way to a newfound hope on November 4th?
Got Gun ...Power or Crumb? (3rd assignment)
*(Mae West, “She Done Him Wrong” 1933)
Gitlin, T. (1986). We build Excitement: Car commercials and Miami Vice. Watching television: A Pantheon guide to popular culture. Pantheon Books
4th Assignment: The Pen is Mightier than the Gun
Who cares who the VP is anyway, as long as we get to keep our guns? From the point of view of the NRA, the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution—the right to bear arms—might even trump freedom of speech, assembly, religion and the press.
In “We Build America,” Gitlin identifies that the automobile is one of the most potent devices that advertisers use to exploit the American romance with power objects—metaphors for personal freedom, rugged individualism, and desirable social status. We create these icons all the time, even in politics, where they quickly become surrogates for critical thinking. As long as we wrap the particular political figure or organization in the American flag and other symbols of American virtue, we don’t have to think about what the politicians really represent—their political ideology, policies and agenda as well as their social values. An equally commanding power object is the gun, embodied in another staple American icon, the lone gunman who incarnates in many forms: the heroic hunter-explorer, the moralistic self-righteous cop, the Samurai gun slinger, and the lonesome cowboy or cowgirl. Politicians and political candidates are routinely packaged with stock symbols that connote a figure of strong moral character, a stalwart protector and defender, a self-sufficient and unshakable leader, and above all, a courageous patriot. “On the surface… commercials … manipulate the romance of freedom in order to sell automobiles” (Gitlin, 1986). The metaphor of the gun has been deeply embedded within the American psyche since the early years of our Republic and our aggressive Westward expansion.
Currently, both the Republican and Democratic candidates have adopted, as part of their public aura, particular class values that cut to the proletarian facet of the American persona. Every Joe six-pack and hockey mom can identify with these archetypes; and, in their present mode, they are all products of what Adorno recognized as the culture industry. But wait a minute, there might be a new sheriff in town!
Whether it’s the President or Vice-President, this militaristic vigilante type attitude affects the presidency and the country as a whole. Very few American Presidents have been successful who’ve held an anti-war, anti-violence position. Jimmy Carter ‘s lack of aggressiveness as “commander in chief” of the military was viewed by many as wimpy. Whether Democrat or Republican, it doesn’t seem to matter—if you are not ready to take up the gun, you are considered weak and un-American.
Palin was a nobody that no one remembered until she was recruited and coached by a Republican organization called GOPAC (“Preparing a New Generation of Republicans to Lead America”) for a political career in the same way that young, unknown wannabe entertainers are shaped and displayed on American Idol, creating the next blockbuster entertainment sensation—and you even get to vote! It’s an uncanny how similar American Idol is to the phenomenon of grooming politicians for elected office. First, a group of “experts” with a semblance of authority selects individuals they think are good material. Those who pass the audition are then appropriately tutored and presented to the public in well-scripted events, much like the coming out parties for debutantes. Finally, we the people get to cast our vote yea or nay. It’s all part of the art and science of marketing in which politicians are regarded in the same light as every other commercial product. Spending $150,000 on Governor Palin’s wardrobe and makeup is nothing new. Every politician with ambitions beyond municipal office must consent to be airbrushed by PR specialists in order to become consumer friendly—not only a clean and shiny package at the political check out counter, but a personage palatable to the culture makers: if the culture makers are displeased, the candidates—their public personas—will be shredded and sent back to the media makeover department.
Yes, icons of all stripes are now media products just like Madonna or Hannah Montana, with the potential for selling a variety of associated accessories conveniently included in the ideology box: guns, beer, identity, power. In the context of political marketing, it is definitely more important to spend $22,000 on Sarah’s hair and makeup, fashioning a faux feminist image, than educating her about foreign policy, the constitution, the law, social and domestic policy, history and how the federal government actually works.
Gitlin was speaking about car commercials, but the same methodology and technology are used to advertise politics and politicians. You begin with someone who is a “blank”, an unknown quantity, and turn them into an American idol, an archetype that embodies personal freedom, personal power, virtue and apple pie with all the trimmings. And one of the most enduringly popular archetypes is the gun slinging Dirty Harry
or Annie Oakley. Gramsci would probably ask us to decipher the meta-message: as long as you can keep your gun, you don’t need to worry about educating your children, health care, your job, teenage pregnancy or the poor. A comfortable, false sense of security quells your longing to rise up, protest and question the powers that be. What is being reinforced and rewarded is the attitude that it’s every man for himself: we don’t need solidarity if we can just look after ourselves.
As long as you feel a sense of personal power because you can own a lethal weapon, you don’t have to align yourself with others to improve your community or change the government. This is one of the traditional ways that the power elites have learned to divert the attention of the masses from thinking, speaking, discussing and acting together. Gramsci might acknowledge that the right to bear arms is indeed empowering, but only slightly. Even though every citizen has this right, it is a freedom that is exaggerated and romanticized to the point that it is felt to be the cornerstone of the foundation of our American democracy—as if all of our rights and freedoms are balanced on this singular one and, if we loose it, we will be at the mercy of the government and criminals. But in reality, what does this right confer upon us other than the power to kill an intruder, our neighbor, our boss or massacre our fellow workers, students and teachers.
The symbolic resonance of the gun ripples through our culture at every level and our political idols and leaders embrace it. A modern exemplar was Ronald Reagan, the iconic, modern, cowboy-actor President. With First Lady Nancy Reagan, they were the veritable Roy Rogers
and Dale Evans of the American Presidency. Now we have John McCain = soldier, a professional gun slinger in defense of flag and country; Sarah Palin = Amazon huntress, a Caribou Barbie ready to act and protect; and Dick Cheney = our supreme, predatory hawk, a true believer in the power of the big gun, the primacy of overwhelming military strength, the Bush administration’s primary strategy for driving a foreign policy whose goal is to maintain our global hegemony by any means necessary. Dick Cheney and his possible understudy, Sarah Palin, represent America’s number one sheriff.
Come to think of it, who should be the one with a finger on the button? Well, gosh, it ought to be someone who knows how to shoot and how to get the job done!
In his final days as President, Eisenhower gave a clear admonition that has gone unheeded—to reign in the military industrial complex. Socialists—not the Russian ones—have always warned against the consolidation of power between government, business and the military, and characterize it as the hallmark of totalitarianism.
Is it possible that we give way to a newfound hope on November 4th?
Got Gun ...Power or Crumb? (3rd assignment)
*(Mae West, “She Done Him Wrong” 1933)
Gitlin, T. (1986). We build Excitement: Car commercials and Miami Vice. Watching television: A Pantheon guide to popular culture. Pantheon Books
4th Assignment: The Pen is Mightier than the Gun
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Politicking Celebs
Celebrity, the word has caused quite a stir in the presidential race.
This McCain ad accusingly labels Obama a celebrity, as if fame is generally considered unfavorable in the US, as if celebrity were a pejorative term, as if McCain himself weren't recognizable around the globe. What the McCain PR team seems to have forgotten is that millions of Americans buy and buy into all the glamour, fashion, scandal and every minute detail of celebrities' lives. We encounter images and stories about the rich and famous everywhere: in the tabloids at supermarket checkout lines, on TV shows, including the evening news, and on websites and blogs devoted to spreading celeb gossip.
Celebrity is the driving force behind much of American mass culture, providing people in our society with both a commodity to desire and acquire, as well as an ideology to espouse. In this way, celebrities assume the characteristics and functions of the dominant class, which in turn subsumes the interests of the people who consume mass culture, thereby maintaining the power dynamic of the rich and elite over everyone else. Celebrities have high cultural status and hold the power to influence our choices; whether it's the shoes we wear or the beverages we drink, celebrities' opinions, image and lifestyles affect how and what we think. It should follow then, that celebrities can influence who we choose to vote for.
By the looks of this video, celebrities believe-- or at the very least hope-- that they have the ability to sway voters' decisions. Here, Ron Howard, Andy Griffith and Henry Winkler complement their celebrity with humor and nostalgia to appeal to viewers. In Marxist terms, what the pathos of this video may accomplish is false consciousness. By yoking entertainment with politics, this video subtly compels viewers to think favorably about the message and about the status of celebrities. Whether the viewer agrees with Howard & co. is beside the point; when someone watches the video, presumably enjoying the process, that person absorbs not only the overt message (vote Obama in this case), but also the idea that celebrities' opinions matter more than anyone else's and that celebrities are some of the most important people in the world-- they are ruling class. By asserting themselves as ideologically dominant in the US, celebrities continually establish their preponderant position in American society, which serves as a constant reminder that "we the people" are subordinate.
Two things are unclear with regard to the issue of celebrities dealing in politics: 1) whether people are genuinely persuaded to vote with the celebs, and 2) why the McCain campaign sought to equate Obama with celebrity in a negative fashion. Of the former, I cannot offer any conclusion. What I can see though is that celebrities don't hesitate to say whatever they're thinking regarding politics or "politicians", especially when they can share those thoughts with the whole nation.
Matt Damon wasn't the only celebrity to speak out against the high profile vice presidential candidate. Pam Anderson also expressed herself and though she was none too eloquent, she didn't mince words either.
This type of persona is probably closer to what the McCain campaign had in mind when it attempted to malign Obama with the celebrity epithet: someone who is famous for partying and being at the center of scandal, someone whose reputation is based on physical appearance, someone who deviates from down-home family values. The McCain ad uses the images of Brittney Spears and Paris Hilton to establish this conception of celebrity. What McCain's campaign did not anticipate was a direct response from the infamous heiress herself.
While this video portrays Hilton as the vacuous jet-setter she is reputed to be, it also convincingly shows her to possess intellect and a form of social consciousness. That she speaks intelligently on serious political issues undermines the apparent claim of the McCain ad that celebrities are ignorant of or indifferent to the quotidian struggles of middle class Americans. This video response to the McCain ad became so popular that it merited a sequel, featuring more celebrities.
The argument from the McCain camp that Obama is unfit to be president because he is a celebrity is not only petty but also obtuse in that it fails to recognize the power and popularity of celebrities. Celebrities are in fact model capitalists:
- they control the means to produce and distribute their message/cultural product
- they have the platform to reach the populace
- they posses the allure necessary to grab the attention of society
- they set the standards for acceptable behavior, which people emulate
- they can create false consciousness by coercing people to enjoy doing and thinking things that are against their interests by means of entertainment
- ultimately, they have the power to maintain the status quo by situating themselves in a class above all the non-rich and non-famous citizens of the USA
So then, if Obama is a celebrity, then he is the perfect person to salvage American capitalism. Isn't that exactly what McCain wants?
Here's another look at the celeb ad, along with my spin on it.
Or check out my original piece on celebrity phenomena.
This McCain ad accusingly labels Obama a celebrity, as if fame is generally considered unfavorable in the US, as if celebrity were a pejorative term, as if McCain himself weren't recognizable around the globe. What the McCain PR team seems to have forgotten is that millions of Americans buy and buy into all the glamour, fashion, scandal and every minute detail of celebrities' lives. We encounter images and stories about the rich and famous everywhere: in the tabloids at supermarket checkout lines, on TV shows, including the evening news, and on websites and blogs devoted to spreading celeb gossip.
Celebrity is the driving force behind much of American mass culture, providing people in our society with both a commodity to desire and acquire, as well as an ideology to espouse. In this way, celebrities assume the characteristics and functions of the dominant class, which in turn subsumes the interests of the people who consume mass culture, thereby maintaining the power dynamic of the rich and elite over everyone else. Celebrities have high cultural status and hold the power to influence our choices; whether it's the shoes we wear or the beverages we drink, celebrities' opinions, image and lifestyles affect how and what we think. It should follow then, that celebrities can influence who we choose to vote for.
See more Ron Howard videos at Funny or Die
By the looks of this video, celebrities believe-- or at the very least hope-- that they have the ability to sway voters' decisions. Here, Ron Howard, Andy Griffith and Henry Winkler complement their celebrity with humor and nostalgia to appeal to viewers. In Marxist terms, what the pathos of this video may accomplish is false consciousness. By yoking entertainment with politics, this video subtly compels viewers to think favorably about the message and about the status of celebrities. Whether the viewer agrees with Howard & co. is beside the point; when someone watches the video, presumably enjoying the process, that person absorbs not only the overt message (vote Obama in this case), but also the idea that celebrities' opinions matter more than anyone else's and that celebrities are some of the most important people in the world-- they are ruling class. By asserting themselves as ideologically dominant in the US, celebrities continually establish their preponderant position in American society, which serves as a constant reminder that "we the people" are subordinate.
Two things are unclear with regard to the issue of celebrities dealing in politics: 1) whether people are genuinely persuaded to vote with the celebs, and 2) why the McCain campaign sought to equate Obama with celebrity in a negative fashion. Of the former, I cannot offer any conclusion. What I can see though is that celebrities don't hesitate to say whatever they're thinking regarding politics or "politicians", especially when they can share those thoughts with the whole nation.
Matt Damon wasn't the only celebrity to speak out against the high profile vice presidential candidate. Pam Anderson also expressed herself and though she was none too eloquent, she didn't mince words either.
This type of persona is probably closer to what the McCain campaign had in mind when it attempted to malign Obama with the celebrity epithet: someone who is famous for partying and being at the center of scandal, someone whose reputation is based on physical appearance, someone who deviates from down-home family values. The McCain ad uses the images of Brittney Spears and Paris Hilton to establish this conception of celebrity. What McCain's campaign did not anticipate was a direct response from the infamous heiress herself.
See more Paris Hilton videos at Funny or Die
While this video portrays Hilton as the vacuous jet-setter she is reputed to be, it also convincingly shows her to possess intellect and a form of social consciousness. That she speaks intelligently on serious political issues undermines the apparent claim of the McCain ad that celebrities are ignorant of or indifferent to the quotidian struggles of middle class Americans. This video response to the McCain ad became so popular that it merited a sequel, featuring more celebrities.
See more Paris Hilton videos at Funny or Die
The argument from the McCain camp that Obama is unfit to be president because he is a celebrity is not only petty but also obtuse in that it fails to recognize the power and popularity of celebrities. Celebrities are in fact model capitalists:
- they control the means to produce and distribute their message/cultural product
- they have the platform to reach the populace
- they posses the allure necessary to grab the attention of society
- they set the standards for acceptable behavior, which people emulate
- they can create false consciousness by coercing people to enjoy doing and thinking things that are against their interests by means of entertainment
- ultimately, they have the power to maintain the status quo by situating themselves in a class above all the non-rich and non-famous citizens of the USA
So then, if Obama is a celebrity, then he is the perfect person to salvage American capitalism. Isn't that exactly what McCain wants?
Here's another look at the celeb ad, along with my spin on it.
Or check out my original piece on celebrity phenomena.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
I Don't Have a Dollar to My Name, but Can I Get Some CHANGE?
Episode One:
"The Genius of our founders is that they designed a system of government that can be changed. And we should take heart, because we've changed this country before. In the face of tyranny, a band of patriots brought an Empire to its knees. In the face of secession, we unified a nation and set the captives free. In the face of Depression, we put people back to work and lifted millions out of poverty. We welcomed immigrants to our shores, we opened railroads to the West, we landed a man on the moon, and we heard a King's call to let justice roll down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream... For that is our unyielding faith-- that in the face of impossible odds, people who love their country can change it."
-Barack Obama "Our Past, Future & Vision for America" February 10, 2007 Presidential Announcement
FALSE CONSCIOUSNESS- Convincing the masses to believe that they need something that is against their self interest. This means it will most definitely benefit the ruling class.
HEGEMONY- Control without physical force. The dominant groups control by securing spontaneous consent of subordinate groups through negotiated construction of a consensus that incorporates all!
In terms of this election year:
BOTTOM LINE:
This election seems to have reshaped what the masses need; a more liberal Head of State. A conversation held in a coffee shop sparked my interest in whether or not the ruling class is using hegemonic ideologies to enlist the aid of the proletariat to meet a certain end. Really, what we need to question is who is currently the ruling class?
Is it:
If we are to look at all angles of this election, the odds seem against the Republican party. It almost seems TOO perfect. Could it be that we are being directed to think and vote a certain way? Looking at the surface of the Republican party's candidate, it doesn't look too good.
The Stats (working against "the Man"):
Though we have the chance to choose our presidential candidate, it seems that we are being fed the answer to our problems. Reading through articles or watching videos about Barack Obama-- they seem to scream HEGEMONY! Someone is TELLING us to vote a certain way--without forcing us-- without outwardly saying: "This is the who you SHOULD vote for! This is who you NEED to vote for! This is the best possible decision you could EVER make."
Not to discount Senator Obama by any means. Yet, there is a sense that all things pop culture seem to be pointing that way. "The Obama way." There is a sense of rebellion that is attached to voting for Obama; that this is a presidential race built upon voting against the same person who always wins-- right wing, white and elderly. We find that change, for the positive, can be found in a biracial man, who does not quit in the journey to change a nation that finds itself with its index finger on a red self-destruct button.
Yet, in this case, is hegemony so bad? If we look at hegemony as a way to make change in our country, can we not embrace it as Gramsci suggests? Hegemony, in this situation, is pushing for the masses to vote a certain way; the "right way." It is pushing us to make a change. The "common man" is given this option. It almost seems as though the ruling class is giving the regular man-- as manifested, for example, through Joe the Plumber or Joe Six Pack (by the GOP party)-- a way to have a hand in the future of the nation. Oddly enough, we've always been given this right to CHOOSE, to VOTE, and yet, it seems like a gift that we are recently being given as a nation. Suddenly, the minorities of the population (whether referring to race, age, sex, economic stance) are primed to vote. Who is pulling the strings?
EPISODE TWO:
Obama as the Hegemonic Hero.
Discussion of selling an image to win votes.
EPISODE THREE:
Obama Platform: The Facts
Separating the image from the candidate's platform. A short video piece that gets straight to the point.
"The Genius of our founders is that they designed a system of government that can be changed. And we should take heart, because we've changed this country before. In the face of tyranny, a band of patriots brought an Empire to its knees. In the face of secession, we unified a nation and set the captives free. In the face of Depression, we put people back to work and lifted millions out of poverty. We welcomed immigrants to our shores, we opened railroads to the West, we landed a man on the moon, and we heard a King's call to let justice roll down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream... For that is our unyielding faith-- that in the face of impossible odds, people who love their country can change it."
-Barack Obama "Our Past, Future & Vision for America" February 10, 2007 Presidential Announcement
FALSE CONSCIOUSNESS- Convincing the masses to believe that they need something that is against their self interest. This means it will most definitely benefit the ruling class.
HEGEMONY- Control without physical force. The dominant groups control by securing spontaneous consent of subordinate groups through negotiated construction of a consensus that incorporates all!
In terms of this election year:
- Distractors (using popular culture to convince the masses that they NEED to fall into line and vote a certain way.)
BOTTOM LINE:
- The working class unifies to overthrow the ruling class.
This election seems to have reshaped what the masses need; a more liberal Head of State. A conversation held in a coffee shop sparked my interest in whether or not the ruling class is using hegemonic ideologies to enlist the aid of the proletariat to meet a certain end. Really, what we need to question is who is currently the ruling class?
Is it:
- The lower & middle class: As they make up a bigger part of the American population and seem to have a greater voice-- which is made so with their ability to create a buzz via the internet.
- The upper class, the meager two-percent of the population that seem to be screwed either way they vote. (see: Taxes.)
If we are to look at all angles of this election, the odds seem against the Republican party. It almost seems TOO perfect. Could it be that we are being directed to think and vote a certain way? Looking at the surface of the Republican party's candidate, it doesn't look too good.
The Stats (working against "the Man"):
- The elderly, robotic candidate...
- The inexperienced, but attractive, running mate...
- The skimpy, [mostly] inaccurate, and shaky platform of the GOP party...
Though we have the chance to choose our presidential candidate, it seems that we are being fed the answer to our problems. Reading through articles or watching videos about Barack Obama-- they seem to scream HEGEMONY! Someone is TELLING us to vote a certain way--without forcing us-- without outwardly saying: "This is the who you SHOULD vote for! This is who you NEED to vote for! This is the best possible decision you could EVER make."
Not to discount Senator Obama by any means. Yet, there is a sense that all things pop culture seem to be pointing that way. "The Obama way." There is a sense of rebellion that is attached to voting for Obama; that this is a presidential race built upon voting against the same person who always wins-- right wing, white and elderly. We find that change, for the positive, can be found in a biracial man, who does not quit in the journey to change a nation that finds itself with its index finger on a red self-destruct button.
Yet, in this case, is hegemony so bad? If we look at hegemony as a way to make change in our country, can we not embrace it as Gramsci suggests? Hegemony, in this situation, is pushing for the masses to vote a certain way; the "right way." It is pushing us to make a change. The "common man" is given this option. It almost seems as though the ruling class is giving the regular man-- as manifested, for example, through Joe the Plumber or Joe Six Pack (by the GOP party)-- a way to have a hand in the future of the nation. Oddly enough, we've always been given this right to CHOOSE, to VOTE, and yet, it seems like a gift that we are recently being given as a nation. Suddenly, the minorities of the population (whether referring to race, age, sex, economic stance) are primed to vote. Who is pulling the strings?
EPISODE TWO:
Obama as the Hegemonic Hero.
Discussion of selling an image to win votes.
EPISODE THREE:
Obama Platform: The Facts
Separating the image from the candidate's platform. A short video piece that gets straight to the point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
