Can the presidential campaign get any more chaotic/kaleidoscopic? Judging by the past week, we’ll have to wait and see
The Debate: A Conflicted Choice
Must admit I didn’t watch. Conflicted with weekly folkdance group, a far less anxious choice for me. But there’s no avoiding the contentious follow-up narratives. Do charges of cognitive slipping vs. imbalance/espousing alternate realities make the two candidates so unfit both should immediately withdraw? As if it could be that simple. And would it be if it actually happened.
How’d We Get Here?
As Americans, we all have a stake in the outcome. So, of course, does the rest of the fraying international community. (Francesca Chambers and Michael Collins. Biden, Trump fears loom over NATO summit, Europe’s defense. USA Today. July 10, 2024). We’re supposed to be choosing the “Leader of the Free World” here. Jon Stewart of the Daily Show did watch and asked, “is this the best we can do? This is America!” His words reflect a longstanding sense of American exceptionalism, immunity, superiority. Political and societal messes happen elsewhere, not here. But if that was ever true, we have mounting evidence it’s no longer so. And fault lines and contradictions widen, like growing ageism even as our population becomes grayer. And this despite only 3 years difference between the two men and multiple verbal flubs by both.
The Rise of Televised Debates:
How did presidential debates take on such importance in the first place? The short answer is they’re TV shows. Way back before mass media, personal campaign appearances were considered unseemly, beneath the dignity of the office. Stand-ins represented the candidates. Later, came whistle-stop tours from the backs of trains and then radio. Then TV created the opportunity to see candidates and how they perform live. The first televised presidential debates pitted Kennedy against Nixon in the 1960 election. Admen and marketers recognized the relatively new medium’s potential to manage and manipulate images and personas. And the savvy Kennedy campaign hired the “first TV consultant on a presidential campaign” (Obit: documentary on the NY Times. 2017). Taller, in a custom-tailored suit, behind an almost-not-there podium, no five o’clock shadow beard, their man came off cooler, more stylish, less sweaty. Though he started with lower name recognition, he presented the identity Americans wanted. So, it seemed debates could work magic?
Tech’s Influence on Politics:
Constantly developing new tech expands opportunities to manage and manipulate. And what we see or think we see can slide increasingly farther from the truth and nothing but. “New threats and aces in digital technology mean that old bargains don’t work anymore.” Secrets aren’t as easy to keep. And “Amid…steps and missteps, partisan rancor, media hype, and changing threats, the nation is seeking an accommodation between openness and secrecy for the digital age. Far from being helpless, ordinary citizens have a leading role in deciding what the new bargain [the new social contract] will be.” (Mary Graham. Presidents’ Secrets: The Use and Abuse of Hidden Power. Yale University Press. c2017).
The Hero Leader Archetype:
Anthropologist Gregory Bateson pioneered using tech—still and film cameras—into fieldwork conducted to study cultures. Over 50 years ago, he voiced what strike me as prophetic concerns over “… addition of modern technology to the old system…Conscious purpose is now empowered to upset the balances of the body, of society, and of the biological world around us.” (Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Random House. 1972). One of our oldest forms is hero culture, age-old traditions around how we want our leaders to be or seem to be. The idea of divine right, extraordinary powers. Could this explain why many presidents have been former generals? Quintessential strong men/heroes, by definition leaders of men, though they’re now aging.
Presidential Debates as Modern Duels:
Neither candidate served in the military, but required to present as heroes, they must prove themselves. And so, debates turn into a kind of Single Combat. Wikipedia describes duels taking place in the context of a battle between two armies. Champions fight in no-man’s-land between opposing forces, which stay on the sidelines till one man wins. Examples occur throughout history, from Classical Antiquity, the Middle Ages and worldwide. This carries forward in sports, with “stars” becoming icons for fans and local communities. The ex-president didn’t participate in earlier debates with GOP opponents but saved himself for the main event. Didn’t watch but I can’t help picturing the two old/aging men in suits and ties, grappling in front of the cameras. Turns out I have company; New York magazine just ran a doctored photo of the two men in underwear on the cover on its Health Issue (Josephine Harvey. New York Mag Cover of Near-Naked Trump and Biden Sparks Backlash. Huffpost. July 18, 2024). The former president did reportedly tout his superior golf game, while he managed to simultaneously present as the “strong man” and victim/martyr persecuted by political enemies. (Russ Buetner. Martyr Inc.: How Trump Monetized a Persecution Narrative. NY Times. July 24, 2024). Meanwhile, the current president was described as “significantly compromised in his ability to express thoughts and recall words.” (Aaron Zitner and Clare Ansberry. A Nation on Edge Fears an Election Careening Toward an Ugly Finish. Wall Street Journal. July 14, 2024).
The Power of Alternative Narratives:
Despite the usual comments about the ex-president’s repetition of “alternate truth” claims, he got off relatively lightly. Perhaps the public and media have grown desensitized. Shouldn’t be a surprise, since he first sprang to general public attention with his reality show The Apprentice. Emily Nussbaum, a cultural critic, has been a long-time observer of that genre. (Cue the Sun: The Invention of Reality TV. Random House. 2024; also featured in an NPR Book Review June 25, 2024). “Critics [keep] writing off reality programming….” The dismissive pattern continued for decades – “and critics were wrong every time.” Though much-maligned, it’s “always been a trap” that can lead to a tendency to “succumb to the temptation to treat reality too lightly.” Bateson foretold this as well. “…[E]rror is often reinforced and therefore self-validating. You can get along all right in spite of the fact that you entertain at rather deep levels of the mind premises which are simply false.”
Propaganda in Politics:
Bateson also understood that using propaganda and “alternate truths” becomes a reactive, rather than an active game. The practitioner “…[must] always have his eyes open to tell him what the people are saying about his [story/narrative]. Being responsive to what they are saying…cannot [allow for] a simple lineal control.” A case in point is Project 2025, product of the conservative Heritage Foundation, that “calls for sacking of thousands of civil servants, expanding the power of the president, dismantling the Department of Education, sweeping tax cuts, a ban on pornography, halting sales of the abortion pill, and much more.” (Mike Wendling. Project 2025: A wish list for a Trump presidency explained. BBC. July 12, 2024). Note the source of that article. Yes, the rest of the world is watching. The ex-president has backpedaled, saying he knows nothing about Project 2025. But really!? (Steve Contorno. Trump Claims Not to Know Who Is Behind Project 2025: A CNN Review Found at Least 140 People Who Worked for Him Are Involved. CNN. July 11, 2024).
Reality TV’s Impact on Politics:
Of course, the term “reality TV” is a misnomer. Shows seem to be loosely storyboarded but encourage participants to improvise and are then edited to appear spontaneous. Nussbaum based her book on interviews with “a staggering 300 people who worked in every conceivable capacity – from network executives to show creators to crafts people and cast members…” And she found that, “For many people, doing this kind of television wasn’t a naïve misstep at all – it was a conscious choice to participate in an extreme sport, one whose risks they embraced.” Think of Andy Warhol’s 15-minutes of fame. Recent reports reveal behind-the-scenes secrets—low pay, exploitation, false imprisonment, physical and sexual abuse, promotion of substance use. (Nussbaum. Is Love Is Blind a Toxic Workplace? New Yorker. May 20, 2024). And actual reality is shielded with tight Non-Disclosure Agreements enforced by punishing lawsuits against participants who don’t comply.
Celebrity Culture’s Influence on Society:
Easy to recognize parallels with social media that make celebrity culture both too close and too distant. Channels offering 24-7 coverage need content and so, they track relationships, breakups, divorces, custody battles, nepo babies. And there are of course the rumors. The intent seems to be turning us all into gossips and voyeurs and, most important, consumers. And that generates envy and comparison, ultra-fandom, pseudo-identification and intimacy. And, by the way, what are they wearing? And can I buy something similar for less? This expands on a long history of privacy invasion that comes as part of the tradeoff for any kind of fame. Think Hollywood gossip columnists Hedda Hopper and Louella Parsons in the 1930s and 1940s and paparazzi as shown in Fellini’s La Dolce Vita. And there’s the pattern/trope of building a “star” up only to tear him or her down. Not to mention potential for that to morph into deadly stalking a la the murder of John Lennon.
The Limits of Sympathy for Celebrities:
The other side of envy and comparison is lack of sympathy for targets/stars. The includes a tendency to let tech and its growing capabilities take the lead in the ways we use it. Bateson early noted “..the temptation to obey the computer. After all, if you follow …you are a little less responsible than if you made up your own mind.” And, as Nussbaum noted, “Most people don’t see going on a reality show [or becoming a celebrity or a politician?] as work…it’s simply a different category of behavior: gonzo volunteerism, or an audition for fame… in which people agree to put themselves at risk, emotionally or physically, for an adventure or the chance of future opportunities.” If something bad happens to reality stars (as in porn, cast members are always “stars”), “they literally signed up for it.”
A Fragmented Society and National PTSD:
Chaos roils on: we have the Republican National Convention—again, I don’t watch but I read—and continuing calls for the current president to step aside as candidate (Edith Olmsted. Biden Finally Sees Writing on the Wall After Brutal Triple Leak. New Republic. July 19, 2024). And there are reports that his handlers have been regularly covering up his slips. This again, as per the title Graham’s book, repeats the presidents and secrecy trope, going all the way back to George Washington. Woodrow Wilson remained in office after he suffered a stroke and was unable to fulfill his duties or over a year, his condition covered up by his wife and doctor. Secrecy and stubbornness converged back then too.
NATIONAL PTSD? FORGETTING AND YET REMEMBERING?
Are we suffering a form of national—perhaps even global—PTSD? And can we find ways to navigate the current morass, rediscover semi-solid common ground, and eventually come back together? (Linda Kintsler. Jan. 6, America’s Rupture, and the Strange, Forgotten Power of Oblivion. Guest Essay. NY Times. June 15, 2024; NPR Think with Krys Boyd interview. July 1, 2024). Can we manage to find the odd balance between not over remembering grievances yet not over forgetting the wrongs that generated them? Can we find ways to “consecrate” and memorialize losses and wrongs yet still move on and relearn the lesson that we’re all in this together? Examples cited include South Africa’s Reconciliation Commission following that country’s generational history of crushing apartheid. Start by taking as given there’s no way to punish enough. In this country, the author noted the imbalance of continuing trials of January 6 “foot soldiers,” while leaders/instigators remain largely unaccountable. Recent court actions probably make that less feasible for now. But USA Today headlined folks losing jobs for mean-spirited comments on the assassination attempt against the former president.
To reiterate Graham’s point, “ordinary citizens have a leading role in deciding what the new bargain [the new social contract] will be.” What kinds of narratives about ourselves will we choose to follow? “…In the mythos of modern documentary reality, what matters most is how things work….in today’s world we need to extend the discourse to include everybody’s involvement in the mythos of documented reality….in the cultural politics of authenticity.” But can authenticity pay/work these days of “alternate truths?” I hope it can. And that we can do this together.
