October 09, 2003
Listening to the Pundits
San Francisco has a really excellent radio program on KQED called Forum with Michael Krasny which covers the political scene incredibly well. However, listening to the political pundits on this program today, I wonder if I've been transported to California's never, never land.
One of the pundits on this morning's show was overwhelmed with how "admired" Schwarzenegger is. His comment was that he has never seen any Democratic politician that has gotten the looks of adoration that Schwarenegger has gotten and this should make Democrats take pause. (*) I keep wondering if these pundits have studied politics. If Schwarenegger is "adored", what is different than the cult of Mao cultivated in China during it's most totalitarian mode? We don't elect people to "adore" them. We elect them to carry out policies that we believe are important. One is a democracy, the other is not. Does that pundit really want to live in a totalitarian state? If not, why isn't he worried about the consequences of supporting someone who has the potential of becoming a demagogue.
The conclusion of the Forum program? The people wanted someone that was the "fun to watch, rather than boring to watch". One woman in Southern California said that she voted for the recall because she wanted some more excitement. So, I guess we are truly are ready to watch the lions eat the Christians in Rome, but that's okay, because we've been bored.
(*) Does he advise Democrats to find their own Schwarzenegger? Do we look for a figurehead that will whip up troops to "discipline" those that are not falling inline? Do we want to encourage showtime politics because we really don't think that anything matters besides the power? I'd be very interested in understanding how these policies encourage a well-informed electorate that feels empowered to help shape the government policies under which they live.
Posted by Mary at October 9, 2003 03:12 AM | TrackBackyour comments about schwarzenegger's potential for being a demagogue are well-take, especially given the news that a bill to change the constitution to allow foreign-born citizens hold office as president is being introduced into the congress.
(See http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/09/1065676083890.html)
i haven't listened to the 'forum' program so i can't comment on the specific remarks made by the commentators. but for a long time i've noticed that the US press has had an increasing tendency to focus on the style of political campaigns and candidates, rather than on issues. the success of candidates such as schwarzenegger and dubya only testifies to the effect that this raising of style over substance has had on electoral politics.
Krasny has his head up his ass, and he set the anal sphincter too tight. What he is espousing is politics as entertainment. This sort of scenario is extremely detrimental to the proper functioning of any society, much less this one. Are we to allow National Enquirer or US magazine to decide who our candidates are merely through their good looks? Wouldn't this make Miss America more qualified to run Iraq than Condi Rice?
Posted by: pessimist on October 9, 2003 09:40 AMOops, I should have made it clear that Michael Krasny wasn't the pundit that made that stupid remark. Personally, I think Michael Krasny hosts one of the best shows on KQED -- and he has created one of the best talk shows I've heard. It falls on the good side for my good and bad ledger about moving to California.
Posted by: Mary on October 9, 2003 04:18 PMWhat angers me so is the fact that the hypocrites who voted for Der Gropenfuhrer are so star-struck that they can completely overlook a quarter century of womanizing and sexual harassment, voting an unqualified and inexperienced lightweight into the highest office in the state. Yet they are the first to LOUDLY condemn Clinton for his own indiscretions.
I do not understand what is happening to this nation. This is not the America I thought I lived in.
Posted by: Pat K., California on October 9, 2003 07:16 PMFirst, I don't think we'd have any difficulties finding a home-grown American-born demagogue. (please see Orcinus for details)
Although it would be a bit weird if, when US-EU relations are so bad, somebody immigrated from the EU to the US, was elected President, and went on to make them worse.
Second, I think what really happened is that most voters thought Schwarzenegger was a "moderate Republican." Why? He said he was. McClintock didn't carry a single county, so I think he was viewed as a sort of right-wing version of Nader. In other words, many "conservatives" who liked McClintock sighed wistfully and cast their vote for Schwarzenegger.
Bustamente and Davis were perceived as siamese twins.
One possibility is that most voters really
- assumed Schwarzenegger couldn't be that dumb because, hey, every public official gets called an idiot all the time but how many really are, and
- have no idea how much specialized knowledge running a state really requires
I blame the movie Dave. I mean, look at that scene where he balanced the budget by abolishing silly programs on national TV? Posted by: James R MacLean on October 9, 2003 09:14 PM
There is some excellent commentary today on the California elections over at Poilitcs in the Zeros, an LA-based blog.
http://www.polizeros.com/
Posted by: theologicus on October 10, 2003 09:43 AMIt does bother me too that there are pundits out there suggesting that Democrats (or any party for that matter) find "amusing figureheads" to represent them. Mary's point that this sort of cult of personality approach is no different in kind than that of Chairman Mao. I guess what gets my dander up is that political discourse is no longer requiring content but is instead based on superficial cues. We have a situation now where one can potentially present their campaign via "Jay Leno," "Entertainment Tonight," or the E! Channel. Smile pretty for the camera and stick to the script, and voila, instant leader.
How do we reverse the trend?
Posted by: James on October 10, 2003 06:07 PM