We Deserve What We Get
This column is not about Hillary vs. Obama vs. Edwards. The truth is if I had the choice I'd vote for Dennis Kucinich because he's against the war, for the impeachment of war criminals in government, smart on the environment and the economy, and he has a sense of humor about UFOS. He's not afraid to joke about 'em for fear he'll be labeled a nutcase -- as indeed he was.
But I don't have that option. Kucinich represents my views, but he only got 1% in New Hampshire. Too bad.
I want to talk not about candidates but about our media turning every presidential election into a high school popularity contest. And we let them get away with it. And we don't stop Rupert Murdoch, Clear Channel, Disney, GE, Sumner Redstone and a few others from owning all the media all the time.
Our magazines and newspapers are so dumbed down that they never discuss issues, only stereotype or attack or puff up candidates -- and all for the most idiotic things -- like their marriages, which in truth we know nothing about -- or their weight or their clothes or their hair. They don't discuss brains, intelligence, psychological maturity, but only who's up or down in the polls, cuter in photos, who misted up, cried or didn't cry, said "my friends" like Reagan or mimicked Bill Clinton's style or JFK's or whomever's. Our press is a disgrace.
When Al Gore was a candidate, he was mocked and slimed by our stupid press. And look who we got? Cheneybush! Now Hillary's being slimed for being a woman, for being the wife of, for being smart, for being political, for being old, for not having left her husband -- just as she'd be slimed if she had left her husband. She has baggage -- like any old broad -- because the truth is that the older you are the more baggage you have. So there's ageism too. And a new fresh face, with less baggage, is like the latest starlet in Hollywood. We never heard about Edwards' ideas until his wife got cancer. We heard about his haircuts!
We never discuss psychological depth because hey, who cares if the president's a bomb-happy dry-drunk trying to play out an Oedipal war with his father? We never talk about people being tested in power or how steady they are or whether they read books or understand what they read because we judge them on their looks. Or one idiotic sound byte, taken out of context.
We had gazillions of columns about Al Gore's weight gain and growing a beard -- I was even asked to write one for the New York Times -- and I obliged because that's all the news that's fit to print and I like shooting my mouth off on the Op-Ed page as much as anyone. Besides women writers are only drafted for the most trivial subjects. We comment on style not substance, beards not policy, clothes and shoes and chick lit and cooking. The men get the big topics like war, though women have the most to lose--like their children whom they carried and nursed and suckled and love more than themselves--as of course do many men.
Bush was considered a good ole boy and Gore was a considered a nerd. Now Edwards cares too much about his hair, Hillary "cried" in the press--though she didn't cry in reality. But we live in this parallel universe where there is no reality. Obama? Who knows who he is? A brilliant writer, yes, a cute young guy, yes, a progressive, we think. But who really knows? I give him the benefit of the doubt. Why not? But what a stupid way to choose a President!
If Eleanor Roosevelt were alive and running, they'd talk about her big teeth and her hoity toity accent. If JFK were alive and running, they'd reveal his affair with Marilyn and slander his wife for it. If Jackie O were alive and running, they'd say she fucked Onassis -- which she did -- while she was married to JFK. If Plato were alive and running, they'd say he was gay--though many Greeks were bisexual and thought nothing of it.
So kids, if you elect a President of the United States like you elected the President of the GO in High School, you deserve what you get.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
You'd think we would have learned our lesson in 2000, not asking hard questions about a candidate's qualifications for office. Well maybe the MSM is content to mimic the National Enquirer, but we as voters should demand more from them. We only have to look back over the last seven years to know we don't want to do it that way anymore.
Having said that, it's not hard to learn the things that matter about a candidate. George Bush's record prior to 2000 was a matter of public record. Anyone who cared enough about this country could have taken the trouble to look it up. And, all one had to do was listen to him speak. Everything out of his mouth said "dummy."
So, yeah... we got what we deserved. Now we have to decide if we deserve better.
"Our press is a disgrace." Couldn't agree more! So is our unrepresentative primary system for narrowing the field of candidates.
Who has some good ideas about how we can unite for change? If CHANGE is the big buzz word this year, let's try to effect changes in the press and in our primary system.
Wow- the truth hurts. Instead of referring to the media as the "Main Stream Media" we should get in the habit of identifying it more accurately as the "Corporate Controlled Media". It has an agenda and the media is its vehicle.
If you can find the recent interview -Bill Moyers had with Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich it is well worth watching. I think it is Ron Paul who talks about corporations stealing the airwaves for their own ventures. It is a great interview with both candidates. Well worth the trouble to find it.
Sad fact is that the majority of Americans fall for the dumbed-down media and seriously consider those trivial things when choosing their candidate. If the people didn't eat that crap up, thereby generating ratings/su
During my travels on the net, I'm frequently shocked by the pure ignorance being espoused by Americans on the forums. Frightening that someone could be so misinformed about the state of the world.
While Erica is a successful writer of prose fiction & a successful poet- her devotion to truth makes her columns in HP & elsewhere a beacon of truth & her ability as a poet makes her prose shine. I confess that I'll have to re-read her blog 3 or more times but reading good writing which is subtle is one thing that I like to do.
Erica Jong writes: Our magazines and newspapers are so dumbed down that they never discuss issues, only stereotype or attack or puff up candidates -- and all for the most idiotic things -- like their marriages, which in truth we know nothing about -- or their weight or their clothes or their hair.
===
Well said, Erica. I couldn't agree more.
It's worth contrasting that sane, adult perspective with a different perspective recently articulated by a HuffPo blogger below:
===
The blogger writes: I am so tired of pink men expecting that someone--a brown, black, yellow or white woman--will trail behind them changing light bulbs, taking out garbage, washing laundry, keeping food in the house, taking care of kids of all ages, of parents of all ages.
(This goes on for quite a while)....
I am not stupid. I know all generalizations are false. I know there are bad mothers, bad women, bad sisters, bad aunts, and bad females of every stripe. But I have seen enough men in high office to last a lifetime. Let's give women a chance!
===
That blogger was you, Erica - sounding just like all the people you criticize for making presidential choices for superficial reasons.
It seems to me your higher self is trying to teach your lower self some wisdom here.
I, also, agree - Great Post.
Arianna, should read it and then hopefully return to
her original plans for this website.
It really bothers me that the media is in attack mode on Hillary Clinton and what makes it worse is that if that same mode were used against Sen. Obama, it would be construed as racism. Why is it okay to attack a woman? When did sexism become a lesser offense. Why is it laughable that Hillary was called a bitch? What would happen if someone made that type comment on Obama? The world would end.
Women should be standing up and screaming at the top of their lungs right now, that IT IS NOT OKAY!!!!!
I agree that Kucinich is extremely unlikely to win. But since this is the primary, and I don't think the Republicans can take the general election away from any of the Democrats, and I think any of the Democrats will be an improvement over what we have now. Therefore, the importance of using my primary vote to communicate to the party and the nominee what it is I want, is more important than picking the candidate that has the best chance of winning the general election. So I'm voting Kucinich anyway. There is a time when choosing the lesser evil is rational, but the 2008 primary is a time to send an unambiguous message. Just vote Kucinich!
Bravo! Great Post!
That was the best thing I've read about how we ended up with the least qualified front runners. I was (am?) a Richardson supporter because of his impressive resume. However he was ignored by all media including our local left wing daily newspaper. Its editor said he could only show stories from the AP, and they didn't cover him. This was BS in itself since there were AP stories about him that I found online all the time.
Americans want simple, easy to understand pictures. Dems seem to want symbolic candidates: a woman, a black man. It is reverse sexism and racism, and it will get us either a big question mark as president, or another republican.
I have always been frustrated about researching candidates and issues only to have my informed vote canceled by some dumbshit who makes their mind up by who is cutest, or would be fun to have a beer with, or the woman, or the funniest, or the one who is the Baptist, etc. Welcome to democracy in America!
I agree with every word your wrote.
Ummmm, Erica, you DO have a choice and you CAN vote for Kucinich. As far as I know, he's still in the race. The mere fact that you're not voting for him negates your article, which made some good points.
As long as you vote for the candidate you think can win instead of the candidate you feel is best for the country, you're part of the problem.
Erica Jong really hits the nail on the head. America is one big high school. The question is, if the media reported on the campaigns in a more substantive manner would Americans reward them by tuning in in larger numbers, or would ratings drop even lower?
The voters aren't much better than the media. It's amazing when Obama is called an "empty suit." I've never heard a law student come from a class on constitutional law and say, "Man, that constitutional law professor is a real empty suit!"
The media's soundbite-approach to politics can help Hillary too-- when she talks about Obama's "present" votes in the Illinois senate, she's not expecting Tim Russert to say that Planned Parenthood wanted the most pro-choice Democrats to vote "present" because Republicans were flooding the senate with new bills in order to force a vote from vulnerable Democrats up for re-election. Obama, with his 100% NARAL rating, was able to protect other pro-choice Democrats with this procedural move.
And let's also not forget this about Hillary: she *is* attractive, does look great in clothes, with wonderful hairstyles and terrific make-up. So imagine if she were obese or what society considers homely? Hillary is where she is today (as a potential nominee of the Democratic party) not only because of her intelligence, hard work, ambition, and luck, but because of her appearance as well. Just like Obama isn't bald and five feet tall. We the American people weed out the candidates who don't look "President
Call me naive, but I don't think America is particularly stupid. The reason we get the dumbed-down drivel we do on the airwaves, etc. is, I think, because of a peculiar systemic problem that has it's roots in aggregating, consolidating, and the move away from local markets. It's all about Potato Salad. Yep. Why can't you get good potato salad in a restaurant? It's usually bland, isn't it? Sometimes, I notice they'll even put bits of colorful food, like pimento, in it to try to create the illusion it isn't as bland as you think it is. But it Is bland. Instead of creating potato salad that has some flavor--spices, pickle-juice, that sort of thing; they intentionally create bland salad. This is not because 95% of us like bland salad. In fact, 95% of us appreciate a flavorful potato salad-even if it isn't quite like Mom used to make. We don't make potato salad to satisfy 95% of us. We make it to avoid complaint from the 5% of us, particularly in certain demographics, who will whine if they can taste fennel. For some reason, the whiners are louder than the praisers, and we are trying to sell potato salad to all demographics.
Controversial, or substantive political commentary is the same way. When you're trying to syndicate your column across the 50, politically different states/markets, it is easier to do if no one complains. Even if the commentary is bland and pointless. At least it won't offend a vocal minority. There is no risk you'll lose an advertiser if you talk saucily (remember the pimento?) about John Edward's hair or Hillary's tears.
I'm afraid that until we solve this problem; and the recent, media-consolidation rulings seem to indicate that we are still moving in the wrong direction for this, we are all stuck with boring potato salad.
Well, except here at HuffPo!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
