Kind of a let down
So there's that scene from Network where you have a mesmerizing but senile network executive declare:
Turns out that, consciously or unconsciously, I've always wanted a guy like this to be the President. Forget for a minute that that guy is more likely McCain than Obama, more likely Dean than Kerry, but this idea that the compelling & honest diatribe has more currency than the patchwork quilt of meaningless sentences that now pass for political rhetoric.
Anyhow, the point of all this is that I'm just flat out wrong. Seasons of the West Wing should have taught me this -- that careful vetting for loyalty, heterosexuality, and apparent marital fidelity is an absolute necessity in politics. I bring this up in light of a current list from Politico actually titled: "A guide to undisciplined messaging" where they explain why you simply cannot use the words: sweetie, pansy, cojones, articulate, and some more obvious ones (tar baby, fatal attraction references).
Furthermore, if you are going to message undisciplined-ly, absolutely under no circumstances may you do it on camera. All this acknowledges a fundamental reality in politics that you need a smooth panderer -- all this acknowledges that I acknowledge that there is no room in politics for a Howard Dean.
But wait, there's more -- I guess if taken as a metaphor for my own life, does all this acknowledge that it's simply an exercise in fulitiliy to remain outspoken in life? I'd say that half of the people I know are at some level good at being smooth panderers. Is that the name of the game, then? Until we just about have a nice NYT obit in the bag, do we writhe in sycophancy? Does Randy ultimately win over Simon in life? How's that for a sex and the city ending?
You've got to say, 'I'm a HUMAN BEING, Goddamnit! My life has VALUE!' So I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell, 'I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!'
Turns out that, consciously or unconsciously, I've always wanted a guy like this to be the President. Forget for a minute that that guy is more likely McCain than Obama, more likely Dean than Kerry, but this idea that the compelling & honest diatribe has more currency than the patchwork quilt of meaningless sentences that now pass for political rhetoric.
Anyhow, the point of all this is that I'm just flat out wrong. Seasons of the West Wing should have taught me this -- that careful vetting for loyalty, heterosexuality, and apparent marital fidelity is an absolute necessity in politics. I bring this up in light of a current list from Politico actually titled: "A guide to undisciplined messaging" where they explain why you simply cannot use the words: sweetie, pansy, cojones, articulate, and some more obvious ones (tar baby, fatal attraction references).
Furthermore, if you are going to message undisciplined-ly, absolutely under no circumstances may you do it on camera. All this acknowledges a fundamental reality in politics that you need a smooth panderer -- all this acknowledges that I acknowledge that there is no room in politics for a Howard Dean.
But wait, there's more -- I guess if taken as a metaphor for my own life, does all this acknowledge that it's simply an exercise in fulitiliy to remain outspoken in life? I'd say that half of the people I know are at some level good at being smooth panderers. Is that the name of the game, then? Until we just about have a nice NYT obit in the bag, do we writhe in sycophancy? Does Randy ultimately win over Simon in life? How's that for a sex and the city ending?
posted by devdoot majumdar at 10:47 AM
1 comments
