Splicetoday

Politics & Media
Sep 08, 2008, 05:35AM

A Trivialized Presidential Election

The 2008 campaign has devolved into a morass of media banalities and clichés, a sham that both Barack Obama and John McCain are doing nothing to discourage.

Last Friday I made a $5 bet about the presidential election with a colleague over one of the sillier questions in this climate of exceedingly silly media overload: Will Oprah Winfrey back down and invite Sarah Palin on her TV show before Nov. 4? My money says yes, based on the gut assumption that viewer backlash will convince Barack Obama supporter Winfrey to issue an awkward mea culpa and ask all four candidates to honor her with their presence. My co-worker was game, wagering that Winfrey won’t back down, placing integrity over ratings (and magazine circulation). In truth, both of us felt unsure about the outcome, and a little embarrassed we were even talking about it.

The Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan wrote on Sept. 6, quite breathlessly in my opinion, that, “It is starting to look to me like a nation-defining election… This campaign is about to become: epic.” Actually, the election might indeed be “epic,” remembered not for anything of real substance, but instead the indescribable banality of the entire process. Does anyone recall the flap du jour back in July when The New Yorker and its editor David Remnick were put on the defensive because of the satiric cover drawing the weekly ran depicting Obama as a Muslim and his wife Michelle in Angela Davis-like garb? It’s fuzzy to me as well, which, at first blush, is a little strange since I wrote a piece about the controversy for The Journal.

Yet consider how much has happened in this contest since the shank of summer, especially during the two national conventions, and not much of it of relevance to who’s going to lead the country for at least the next four years. Republicans derided Obama for having the temerity to give his acceptance speech before 80,000 people at Denver’s Invesco Field with a backdrop that was ridiculed for its resemblance to either the White House, or more ludicrously, to Greek temples. As political theater, it worked. Yet this grand and fleeting stagecraft has little to do with how Obama will navigate the flagging economy or international threats should he become president in January, and isn’t really worthy of derogatory GOP commentary.

Television anchors wondered whether, after John McCain’s predictably dull, and content-lite speech if the balloon-drop would malfunction. Americans, at least those who tuned into the GOP festivities last week—and, amazingly, millions did, drawing ratings that equaled the Obama show—were introduced to the concept of “hockey moms” (until now, apparently a neglected constituency) and mooseburgers. The Washington Post’s hyper media stenographer, Howard Kurtz, captured a dilly of a quote from Fox News’ Brit Hume, who said, in disgust, while killing time on air, how “atrocious” it was that baby pictures of McCain were included in the now-mandatory pre-speech video extolling a candidate’s “personal story.”

Bill Clinton, who had further tarnished his presidential “legacy,” such as it is, earlier this year by running off at the mouth about Obama’s inferiority compared to his wife Hillary (notably injecting a malodorous string of fairly blatant racist innuendoes), redeemed himself in the eyes of at least Democratic-leaning pundits and reporters by giving a speech that was a vigorous endorsement of Obama. Never mind that in typical Clintonian fashion his rhetoric—at least delivered in complete sentences, unlike his Oval Office successor—sounded significant as he spoke but was not memorable just an hour later. Still, as The New Yorker’s Hendrik Hertzberg wrote last week in his report from the Denver convention, “the big dog” more than behaved himself, and quoted a Hillary delegate as saying his address was “a cleansing, a healing that allows the page to be turned,” and  “there was joy in the house.”

Not to outdone, Al Gore compared Obama to Abraham Lincoln, a stretch that I’m not entirely sure even Oprah could make with a straight face. But what the hell, Gore is now America’s wild card (or joker), since he’s developed as many personas over the years as Bob Dylan or David Bowie.

The mass media disgraced itself—again—by its immediate and very nasty condemnation of McCain’s pick of Palin, concentrating on her 17-year-old’s pregnancy, and as Newsweek’s Eleanor Clift said, “laughing” at McCain’s flagrant cynicism in choosing as his running mate a one-term governor from the forgotten state of Alaska. The New Republic’s Martin Peretz, largely a pariah at the magazine he once owned, contributed this deep thought about Palin’s speech: “If Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi had been decked out like soccer mom Sarah last night the G.O.P. would have called them tramps… I give her her due: she is pretty like a cosmetics saleswoman at Macy’s.”

The New York Times, last Monday, ran a front-page story about Palin’s baby Trig, born last spring, that even 16 years ago would’ve been buried—if it ran at all—inside the paper. “In just a few months, [Palin] has gone from hiding her pregnancy from those closest to her to toting her infant on stage at the Republican National Convention.” Now, imagine the media’s reaction if Palin hadn’t included the baby, born with Down syndrome, with the rest of the family after her acceptance speech. In fairness, McCain’s campaign has so far muzzled Palin, keeping her away from the press, but this story, “Fusing Politics and Motherhood in New Way,” has no place on the front page of the Times.

On the other side of media divide, GOP enthusiasts, after their own shock at McCain’s risky pick, declared Palin the “new face” of the Republican party, and praised the Arizona senator for his prescience in, in baseball parlance, paying attention to, and developing, future major league talent. Let’s see: there’s Palin, Bobby Jindal, Eric Cantor, and… well, I’ve run out of names. At least one conservative blogger even alluded to The Mary Tyler Moore Show (since the convocation was in St. Paul), saying that like the fictional Mary Richards, Palin was “going to make it after all.” I support McCain, but stuff like this makes me reach for the barf bucket.

In the days that followed, there was a bout of indignation from some Republicans that after Obama’s convention concluded, allegedly thousands of American flags were chucked in the trash before an Invesco Field worker rescued them. Give the Obama campaign demerits for not saving the flags for future use, but to imply that the Democratic candidate is unpatriotic is absurd and further sullies any real debate about the very real differences between Obama and McCain.

Over the weekend, we learned that Obama will not be “bullied,” “smeared” or “lied about,” a fairly pedestrian rallying cry he gave at fundraiser in New Jersey where, as the Associated Press put it, “rock legend” Jon Bon Jovi hosted a dinner for his candidate of choice. There was also news that McCain and Obama will appear together at the site of the demolished World Trade Center on Sept. 11 and will refrain, on that day, from airing negative advertisements about each other. That’s swell, but as a former Lower Manhattan resident, I’d be far more impressed if the opponent issued a joint condemnation of the federal and New York bureaucracies for the gross incompetence in failing—after seven years!—to rebuild Ground Zero.

This campaign, unless it’s radically altered, will not be remembered as one of ideas. Yes, both Obama and McCain have sketched out rote platforms and proposals that are intended to turn out their respective voters, but I haven’t a clue as to how either one will carry out their promises. At the upcoming debates I’d welcome one of the moderators asking each of the candidates about their plans for immigration reform. Obama’s been largely AWOL on this issue, knowing it’s hot turf for the nativist crowd and best to avoid it. For his part, McCain, who once staked a sensible and humane position, has retreated, and one hopes that privately he’s ashamed about this. I’d also like to know how Obama is going to increase revenues to pay for his version of healthcare and education by merely hiking taxes of those who earn more than $200,000 a year. The questions may come up but both men will bob and weave, to no one’s satisfaction except their respective strategists.

As I wrote in this space several weeks ago, there could be an event that elevates the discourse—say Russia invades the Ukraine (good for McCain) or General Motors files for bankruptcy (a boost for Obama)—but presently, amidst all the media clutter, the election will be decided by one factor alone. Will Americans opt for an older white man (who, due to circumstances beyond his control, looks closer to 80 than 72) or a middle-aged African-American. Maybe that’s a jaded oversimplification, maybe not, but it’s clear that the 2008 presidential election will be covered in black and white.

Discussion
  • First things first, Russ, how dare you bag on Bowie by comparing him to Gore. Bowie's "personas" have been of great artistic influence, Gores have been typical political bs. As for the race, couldn't agree with you more. It seemed at one point to have the potential for serious debate. Now, I feel like I'm watching the finals for Trumps apprentice.

    Responses to this comment
  • 1. We know your political leaning and appreciate your evenhanded articles. 2. The electorate does (do?) not seem to be interested in the issues. Or do we merely accept the drivel fed us by the electronic media? Print pundits appear to be giving more substance. Bring back the daily paper from the grave!

    Responses to this comment
  • I completely agree with you. While this year's campaigns have been entertaining there has been almost a refusal by the candidates to discuss anything besides their opponents' weaknesses and abstract concepts like "change" and "victory." I'm still waiting for Obama to express a real idea about any number of issues, and for Palin to give an interview that doesn't veer back to her parenting skills.

    Responses to this comment
  • Yeah! Finally someone stating the obvious. All candidates need to stick to the issues: http://think.mtv.com/044FDFFFF0098A08300170099226F/

    Responses to this comment
  • Biden (on meet the press) did ask for more republican stance on the issues: http://think.mtv.com/044FDFFFF0098A08300170099226F/

    Responses to this comment
  • It's an election of personality, not ability, which is scary. I'm sticking by my opinion that Romney would have been the best (and most boring) VP candidate due to his economic background, but that's not what McCain needed. He needed someone new and exciting with the ability to fire up a crowd, which he got with Palin. What's worse is that the polarization between the candidates is so strong that once the issues finally come up, I'm not sure it will even make that big of a difference.

    Responses to this comment
  • This reminds me too much of the Roger Clemens scandal, wherein everybody was concerned with steroids rather than baseball. People aren't going to vote for Obama for his policies, he's going to get votes in the North and West because of his race and he's not going to get votes in the South because of his race. It's that simple. Sure, people want "Change," but sadly, most people don't know what he means by "Change," they just like the word.

    Responses to this comment
  • I believe it is always a mistake to expect (and bemoan the failure of) the American political system to conduct elections centered on issues in the style of the European Parliamentary systems. We have, by constitutional design a representative democracy with limited popular participation. Elections involve the selection of candidates for our confidence in their character and judment, not hewing in lock step to a party programme. Those who denigrate this as a "politics of personality" will only beggar their own capacity to grasp the reality of the system inevitably functioning according to its design.

    Responses to this comment
  • this is really just a byproduct of the ridiculously long and overdrawn campaign cycle these days. this election started in october 2006 and it still doesn't feel anywhere close to being wrapped up.

    Responses to this comment
  • this "campaign" is surreal...no issues, only bromides...never have there been so many serious issues completely ignored by the candidates and the media...wtf country is this? BE AFRAID...BE VERY AFRAID!!!

    Responses to this comment
  • So what if the election is trivialized. I just know the Barack is going to win, it's a sure thing. He's been leading the polls like since American was found.

    Responses to this comment
  • Our electorate allows itself to get distracted by trivia, and often votes against its self-interest...so maybe we get what we collectively deserve.

    Responses to this comment
  • Globetrotter, last time I checked, McCain was ahead in the polls. And you should care about the trivialization of the election. We're talking about the most powerful man in America who either will or won't make efforts to pull us out of recession, continue international warfare, and initiate offshore drilling. With Russia doing what Germany was doing before WWII, I just hope America elects someone who will do a good job, not just give a good speech.

    Responses to this comment
  • Demian, as you know, polls are fleeting, and I fuly expect, after the GOP "bounce," that Obama will be slightly in the lead by the end of the week. And that's quite an apocalyptic picture you paint, in reference to Russia. I don't disagree with you, necessarily, and do hope that at least in the debates Obama and McCain talk substance. For example, when is a politician going to have the courage, Florida voters be damned, that he will normalize relations with Cuba? It's crazy not to, but neither McCain or Obama has the guts to propose that.

    Responses to this comment
  • Russ: Great column. You allude to something that I think is profoundly important in this election: the debates. For the very reasons you wrote this piece, there are some real, substantive and yes, tough questions, that neither candidate has been forced to answer. I have not researched the formats of the debates or who will moderate them, but here's hoping that both will encourage serious, and unscripted discussions of the most important issues facing our country.

    Responses to this comment
  • Interesting column, Russ. Seems the normal side show has become the main show in this election. The Far Left,once bitter about Bush had lately perked up, seeing the Jan 20, 2009 light at the end of the tunnel via Obama. Now they're nervous again because of the Sarah Palin Energizer Bunny. The Far Right, once sour about Bush and lukewarm for McCain is optimistic the GOP can actually steal the White House (once again). The media loves all this, goading and provoking both sides - anything to manufacture a controversy. In the meantime, Obama and McCain are like two cyclists on an indoor, banked track, staying close to each other until the final sprint. Neither candidate dares to say anything too definitive on almost any issue. All this is great entertainment but it makes it harder to sort the candidates on substance.

    Responses to this comment
  • this was a great piece. i support obama, but i agree that the media shouldnt have pounced on sarah palin like that. i do think she is the devil's spawn and have plans to retreat to France should she/they be elected, but still. the part that really ticked me off, though, was when BarOb kept saying to the media to leave her alone etc etc...and yet during the Repugnican convention all she could do was say bad things about him. tisk tisk. that's not a way to run an election...um...or is it?

    Responses to this comment
  • Interesting comment, PoMoMad, but I doubt you'll move to France if McCain wins. Manhattan and Hollywood would have half the population of today if, after Bush won in '04, all the people who said they'd move abroad (always to Europe) actually did. That said, I agree with the above comment on Cuba. Why doesn't the media hammer the candidates on normalizing relations there? After all, McCain and Kerry went to Vietnam! together to extend an olive branch. It's a slam-dunk for Obama on Cuba, since it's likely he'll lose Flordia anyway. Make a principled stand and pledge that once he's elected we'll lift the embargo on Cuba and encourage free trade and tourism. I'm leaning to him anyway, but saying that, in public, at a debate, would seal my vote, and the votes of many other young people in Miami. He'd still lose the state, but would gain enormous respect.

    Responses to this comment
  • In today's New York Times (9/11) there was an excellent editorial that mostly excoriating all the political bickering that's prevented the rebuilding of Ground Zero. The paper is resigned to the turtle pace, and concludes, "On Sept. 11, 2011, the memorial should be ready for the public to remember the 10th anniversary of the attacks at New York's ground zero." Better late than never, I suppose, which apparently is the Times' view as well. But it's hard to believe that China, India, Germany or even Great Britain would wait so long to rebuild the icon of its biggest city.

    Responses to this comment

Register or Login to leave a comment