Having moved house across town (a lot easier than moving between cities or from country to country as I have done) I am now free to turn to my current favorite entertainment spectacle.
For those who
watched the recent Clinton/Trump debate it’s pretty clear from the numbers that
Clinton won.
Or so it appears.
Now I don’t say
this because I am supporting a douche canoe like Trump or because I am not
supporting a sleaze like Clinton but because watching the debate, the coverage
around it and how the current US presidential election has developed its clear
that there were two very different debates taking place on that stage and
appealing to two different audiences.
On Clinton’s side
you have a politician, who grubby history aside, was willing to go into the
debate cycle of the election and play it like all previous presidential debates
had gone; debate the issues and the policies, a sound strategy and one that
hits the all-important “logical” button with potential voters.
It also follows the
time tested formula of “talking straight” and thereby proving oneself onstage
in what amounts to an important and symbolic nod to the long dead skills of
political oratory by attempting to correlate (in the minds of the voter) the
ability to speak well with the ability to be a leader but which is now nothing more
than a glorified popularity/debate contest for candidates and a formality of
getting elected (a somewhat demented and deranged debutantes ball if you will).
And in earlier
times the ability to speak well was a lot more important for being a leader; from
inspiring troops to go into battle (and possible bloody death) to swaying an
undecided parliamentary house to vote for a particular piece of legislation or
even just because the power of words to move minds had yet to be made irrelevant
in the political context.
And that is what
Clinton would have had in mind going into these debates, her training regimen
included sparring against people who spoke and thought like Trump and simply being
skilled on all potential issues that might come up (Syria, The economy or China
for example) so that she could calmly and clearly say something and sound like
she knew what she was talking about AND that she had a solution to any
particular situation or problem.
On Trump’s side you
have a full out media spectacle, confrontational talk show where reasoned
debate (or at least as reasonable as any political debate can get), is thrown
out the window in favor of a full out orgy of hate, anger and accusations all
layered over with hints of scandal (bringing out those women) and the kind of
nervous unscripted tension that only reality television can provide (ie “what
will they do next?”).
It was a made for
TV political ambush, although it would be been an actually effective ambush if
he had not announced in advance what he was going to do but then again it
probably was not his intent to simply embarrass the Clinton's (and that
particular photo of a gaunt looking Bill Clinton peering worriedly in one
direction certainly conveyed that idea (even if it had been taken out of
context) but rather simply air Bill and Hillary’s dirty laundry in a hitherto forbidden
forum.
Previously, even in
celebrity obsessed America where stars are royalty and royalty are stars, such
a thing would simply not have been possible, or even considered aside from
muttering things to the press corps while out on the campaign trail and then
letting them percolate back through the media (Lyndon Johnson's supposed referenced
about one of his senatorial opponents having carnal knowledge of pigs to the
horror of his aides, comes to mind) but now it was billed and advertised and
millions tuned into watch.
Now before you
dismiss the above separation as gibberish consider why YOU tuned into watch the
debate? What were you hoping to see? Were you really there to see Clinton rationally
talk through the issues facing the US at this time (God knows what they are
because they have not even been tabled this time round, it’s not just about the
candidates it IS the candidates) or were you there to watch what had been
billed (and yes it had been as hyped up as any big name fight card) as Trump Vs Clinton – The Sex Scandal Edition live
on your screen.
If you say the
former then you’re lying though your teeth or a hard core Clinton supporter. If
you say the latter, good on you for being honest but shame on you for helping lower
the tone of the debate.
And here is where
we are now, on the cusp of a change in how the highly mechanized political
machine in the US operates. If a candidate cannot go out on stage without
worrying that her husband’s mistresses and sex crime accusers will be sitting
front row then what remains off the table? What dirt, real or otherwise, will
not be loaded into the muck cannons and sprayed at a candidate as they try to
talk about foreign policy? What is left in the escalating arms race that is the
scandal farm of US politics?
But so what I hear you
cry, Trump is a deranged loon (on that we agree) and as soon as he is flushed
by Clinton in the election we will hear no more and things will go back to the
way they were before (on that we don’t agree).
It’s not that I don’t
think Clinton will win this election but that I don’t put it past the Republicans
to engineer another Gore/Bush 2000 Florida style voting crisis (because
when you look into who runs the companies that make those machines, who they
are connected to and a growing body of documentary evidence that electronic voting in
the US is a serious problem) just to get back into power, even if they can’t
stand Trump, because if they don’t it’s another eight years out of the oval
office and all attendant offices.
What I don’t agree
with is that things will go back to “the way they were”. Is it really likely
given the (de)evolution of politics in the last 60 years that such a tactic is
not going to be brought up again or that a candidate like Trump (despite all
his obvious flaws and issues) turns out to be the only candidate (and message)
that people on one side of the line can get excited about voting for?
Can we imagine the
vast new territories for spin doctors to chart in the course of campaign assassination
of their masters opponents (and for these evil little gnomes my feelings about
them run pretty much the same as Bill Hick’s for people in advertising) and what piece of gossip or innuendo
(true or otherwise) will now be unmentionable on the campaign trail?
No the trajectory
of modern politics is far too clearly diving into the primordial scum pond for
this to not be the next, un-Darwinian, leap forward. All you need is the dirt
and a candidate willing to use it.
And pause for a
moment before you think that it might happen in the US but not in safe, clean
and neat NZ because if National’s Dirty Politics scandal was something else
than a well organised smear campaign** for the parties benefit then we clearly
know where your allegiances lie.
So we have the
method (mudslinging as you have never seen before) and we have the motive
(power for powers sake) but do we have candidates (not just in the US but here
in NZ)?
Clearly in the US
we do because Trump has made it this far despite his buffoonery, despite his
racists and sexists comments (perhaps even because of them) and despite being
an overly entitled member of the wealthy with the business sense and history of
a rock melon.
But the US is a
highly partisan pressure cooker where it’s one side or the other and no third parties
or middle ground; where rabid frothing attack politics is the order of the day
and cognitive dissonance reigns (you can see the flaws in the other sides
candidate but not yours); could such grotesque politics really work in the long
run there or even in little ol Godzone?
You bet your bottom
dollar they could!
There are several
reasons why this is the next step forward and not just an errant blip on the
political radar.
The first is that
nothing has generated more coverage of the US elections this year than the
Trump vs Clinton muckraking. Donald’s dodgy tax and business history is exposed;
his outright comments about Mexicans and women, his bankruptcies etc. Clinton's
email server, her husband Bills peccadilloes, the highly suspect Clinton
Foundation and its cash for access activities etc.
Or compare Colin Craig's dirty laundry being aired daily in the media while the declining voter turnout in local body elections barely made a ripple in the news or got a reaction form the public.
These are the themes that
have defined the US campaign and NZ political coverage (although the housing hernia still continues to swell and poverty remains an issue but there is just no action being done to fix them). Not foreign policy (like Syria or North Korea), not
even domestic politics in a time when issues such as race and police violence, the
US spying on its own citizens, water issues and many more demand attention.
No what has driven
this debate are the candidates themselves and the general disgust voters have
for both of them and that disgust is due to neither being much of an exemplar
of anything except wealth, corruption and naked greed (you can decide if I am
speaking about Clinton or Trump).
The Second is the
declining levels of democratic participation in both the US and elsewhere (like the afore mentioned local body elections) in
the world and like any TV show with sagging ratings the producers have turned
to a new marketing gimmick to boost viewers and keep that sweet ad revenue
flowing in.
So in effect
politics has been given, by Trump and his camp, a reality style makeover (not
so surprising when you remember that Trump has already had his own reality TV
show); no more fixed cameras and scripts, now its gladiatorial style battles to
the death and at the end of each episode (just like Survivor) someone is voted
off the island until they get down to the final two.
And the punters
like it as well. As I noted above, why have most people been tuning into these
debates, do we really want to hear what the candidates are going say about the economy
or some aspect of foreign policy? No we don’t, like Game of Thrones we can’t
wait to get our next fix of sex and violence; we can’t wait to see who dies
next and which way the plot will lurch.
People I know who
have never taken an interest in politics ever, let alone US politics will now debate
the Clinton/Trump situation like seasoned pros, except that the level of
discussion is more along the lines of professional wrestling than an actual
discussion of any real political weight or substance (ie policy planks or issues).
The third reason is
what I like to call FukYoo or Gotterdammerung politics***; these are
democracies where voters are not just beyond disillusioned with their political
leaders (hence the low voter turnout) but they are also now feeling the sharp pinch
of their “leaders” greedy and grubby actions in enriching themselves while
everyone else tightens their belt.
These are people
who don’t care if they win or lose but who will happily take as many down with
them by voting against their own party (I referred to this on a previous post at KP as politics of the Joker; referring to Heath Ledgers Joker character in Batman who simply wanted to "watch the world burn") or values because they can’t abide their
own parties candidate) or who have invested their political hopes in a
candidate who will say anything to win (much like politics in the Philippines where
there has been with a succession of “tough guy” leaders who end up doing
nothing of any substance).
All of these three
factors exist in the US and NZ and we are only fooling ourselves if we don’t expect
the 2017 election here in NZ to not have elements of dirt and scandal of a new
and potent strain or if a post Trump political system will not simply codify
the ground-breaking techniques he has pioneered and modify them to a sleeker,
more palatable, more marketable candidate that is under party control and not
careening around like a drunk in bar.
In this sense Clinton lost the debate as the rear guard of the old school of politics facing down a monster which she cannot slay (every head she cuts off two more appears). In the conventional sense she won but few if any were tuning in to watch that kind of debate.
*-The title is from Russel Crowe in Gladiator but the sentiment is all Frank Zappa when he said "politics is the entertainment arm of industry".
**-As anyone who has worked in Wellington for any period of time, I have herd (and on occasion seen) all manner of dirty, dodgy and sometimes wonderful stories about MPs, the PM and assorted hangers on in Parliament (some from my friend Q who looked after them but others who were also in proximity) which would cause all manner of scandals if they got into the public space (my favorites are the parliamentary groupies and who knows about various wanted individuals now residing in various parts of NZ with full knowledge of the government)
***-I thought I was being clever when I first thought I had coined that term (Gotterdammerung politics) a few months back but a quick google search showed that I was not by far the first person to link Trump to such a term
No comments:
Post a Comment