Thursday, October 02, 2008

He said it

Ever since the Sarah Palin convention speech, I had an idea percolating in my brain about the problem with the American electorate's positive response to presidential candidates they can personally identify with. I've tried to write this blog post a half a dozen times, and every time I end up scrapping it. Part of it was that I couldn't really put the fear I was feeling into the right words. And part of it was my fear that the thing I wanted to say was something that I maybe shouldn't say because it would come out all condescending, offensive, and dangerously.

Last night I tried to talk about this with my Republican father, expressing that I was troubled we have a Vice Presidential candidate who has the same amount of constitutional knowledge as your average person you'd meet on the street. I said I want my candidates to be better than the average person, and my father called that a liberal talking point. This just reiterated all of my discomfort about the whole thing, but it also reiterated why I can't say the things I've been thinking about the dangers of averageness being a selling point for a candidate for the nation's highest two offices.

As luck would have it, I don't have to find the right way to walk that verbal tightrope, because Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi has said it all for me. This is a dangerous, breathtaking, brilliant, offensive, risky, honest, ugly, revelatory article about what Sarah Palin's success tells us about America. Even if you disagree with it, even if you think it's horrible for the same reasons that I never got around to writing that blog post, you must read it. It's everything I wanted to say, but didn't dare to.

Just a sample:

In that moment, the rank cynicism of the whole sorry deal was laid bare. Here's the thing about Americans. You can send their kids off by the thousands to get their balls blown off in foreign lands for no reason at all, saddle them with billions in debt year after congressional year while they spend their winters cheerfully watching game shows and football, pull the rug out from under their mortgages, and leave them living off their credit cards and their Wal-Mart salaries while you move their jobs to China and Bangalore.

And none of it matters, so long as you remember a few months before Election Day to offer them a two-bit caricature culled from some cutting-room-floor episode of Roseanne as part of your presidential ticket. And if she's a good enough likeness of a loudmouthed Middle American archetype, as Sarah Palin is, John Q. Public will drop his giant-size bag of Doritos in gratitude, wipe the Sizzlin' Picante dust from his lips and rush to the booth to vote for her. Not because it makes sense, or because it has a chance of improving his life or anyone else's, but simply because it appeals to the low-humming narcissism that substitutes for his personality, because the image on TV reminds him of the mean, brainless slob he sees in the mirror every morning.


It gets worse, not better, from there. But still...read it. There is some truth there, hurtful though it may be.

4 comments:

Vic said...

Yeah, I've kind of started avoiding Matt Tabbai's pieces because there seems to be a lot of condescension and grade-school name-calling, but I did read this one. Same kind of prose, but a lot of truth too.

DaleC said...

He said it for you and his Canadian said it just fine for me in the comments "This commentary is the exactly what is wrong with US. If you don't like someone, attack them. Rip them to shreds. Don't focus on your candidate and their strengths, go forth with your your character assasination. Hey, it helps sell copy. Sorry, but from where I'm standing, all you are doing is mocking the process and lowering your position rather than stengthening it. When someone doesn't agree with your beliefs, use vulgar to grab the readers attention. Pretty sad when you have to stoop to swearing to get your point across. You should have tagged the article with one of those parental advisory labels you see on a majority of the rap albums. Seems to me that it would have helped you sell your message even better.

Nice try force feeding the electorate why they shouldn't vote for this candidate, rather than why they should support the other. Don't present the issues in a positive manner and let the people decide what is best. I guess you don't feel they are smart enough. Let's scare them into coming over to our side. "


I agree the American voter is lazy, but Tabbai's venal insults to Palin reveal that he is not a brilliant writer, but actually just a jerk. Neal Boortz says the same thing about the "dumb masses" almosy every day and I don't call him "This is a dangerous, breathtaking, brilliant,". I bet that you don't either.

Sara said...

I don't listen to Neal Boortz and I sincerely doubt I would find the style of his commentary as interesting as I found Taibbi's. I'm an old English major who appreciates well-written prose even if I don't agree with everything in it. Which leads to my next point...

I thought I was pretty clear when I called the article offensive and dangerous that I didn't agree with much of what Taibbi said. I guess maybe not as clear as I should've been. It is definitely a mixed bag of analysis, and much of what he said will rightfully invite argument and scorn.

But some of it is true, and important. People who want to see their average, flawed selves directly reflected in their leaders are motivated in part by narcissism. And Sarah Palin's primary appeal is her overwhelming average-ness, whether you call it down to earth or folksy or Joe six pack. McCain tapped her as his VP pick not because she was highly qualified or skilled, but because of this aspect of her appeal. I forget who said it, but whoever called the selection of Palin "cynical" was spot on.

In that blog post that I never got around to writing, I tried to draw the analogy that we don't seek averageness in our non-political icons: athletes, financial gurus, movie stars. We expect the exceptionally capable to rise to the top in every field but politics, where for some reason people lately have seemed to value who they would rather have a beer with over who seems more uniquely suited to the demands of the Presidency. I was reminded that many people will react negatively to being told that being average at something isn't good enough, because they need to hold onto that dream of playing 1st base for the Yankees. And it's true. We all want to believe we are capable of achieving great things, even if by definition only a tiny fraction can succeed at such things. Only 43 men have ever become President. Only a few hundred have ever played first base for the Yankees. Only 73 have won the Best Actor Oscar. Probably only a couple thousand have been the CEO of a Fortune 500 company. To achieve these things, you need to be way way WAY above average in your abilities. This should not be a controversial statement, but it is.

DaleC said...

VP's selections have been "cynical", at least since the day that Kennedy chose LBJ.