Bit off topic but:
I don’t see why you need a Woman in Office to prove that Woman can be in Office.
Someone will probably make up that Oprah molested them or something just to keep her out of Office anyway.
I don’t either, but I personally know people that voted for Obama because “it’s time for a black guy to be President.”
Pretty dumb reason to vote, but that’s how freedom works I guess…
Would Oprah be the first president with a husband and a wife? Now that’s a reality show.
We need every minority in the Whitehouse NOW.
I await the day that a Trans person gets in on just the merit of being Trans.
Or since everyone loved Obama trotting out 8 year old’s to talk about Foreign Policies, both of which words they cannot spell, perhaps a child can get in if they change the rules regarding the age requirement.
It would have to be a transgender black child who is of course a midget.
A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”
With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.” (Benjamin Franklin)
We are not living in the finest hour of the American experiment.
2 Likes
That’s very true but what is the answer? How do we find our way out? Business as usual is not going to do it.
I agree, but I think he’s unique. He has a legitimate head for business, and his personal story is very compelling. Most people we think of today are famous for being famous and are simply fortunate to be able to monetize their fame through social media and the internet. I don’t begrudge them the money they make from that model, but it’s not the same as a Schwarzenegger building up his fortune the old school way. Many modern celebrities are wealthy without being particularly good at anything, they are used to being adored, and that wouldn’t. translate into getting things done politically.
Agreed. Kardashians and (god help me…) Kayne fall into that category.
I think ‘The Rock’ is different, and was only pointing out it can be tricky classifying all celebrities as you did. Oprah, for example, has been shown to have strong staying power and a huge following. Not to be ignored just because she is a celebrity.
If any of the idiot celebrities, especially reality-tv types or internet famous, I agree with you. Keep them as far away from politics and having more power than they already do.
God’s not on your side today sunshine. Kanye did a collab with God if I recall. Kanye has a talent in music making which you can disagree with but he has sold a lot of Albums and stayed relevant.
If there is any certainty in this world, it is that Kayne was sent straight from the heavens to bless us all with his greatness.
1 Like
True art
I don’t consider it a bad thing. Then they leave it up to us as to whether we support their ideas or not. If they are running for office they are giving us a say.
I don’t agree. Not because the best and brightest are trouncing through our hollowed halls of democracy, but that system put in place is being tested as to it’s function. And from where I am standing, the American Experiment is working just fine. The checks and balances are checking and balancing and no one person can have their way all the time every day.
I think it’s a testament to the Constitutional writers. They had to expect the lowest common denominators to hold office from time to time and built a system to withstand that and slow down any freight trains trying to blow through the gates.
Even if you don’t like the players, I think the system is working…
Just started on this thread so apologies if this is repetition of others
No. I don’t think it’s good at all (degrades an already degraded measuring stick for the toughest job on earth), but being that this is a free country they’re welcome to it. I do at least believe that MoreMuscle is right when he says it’s a valid check on politicians.
Agree with this, but my question is: does Trump’s actual election change the environment and perception of “electability needs” for others that follow him in subsequent election cycles? My concern is that it has lowered the bar substantially–he won purely on bombast, outrageousness, and social media. I believe we will see permanent changes in subsequent election cycles much like TV did for JFK/Nixon and the internet did for Obama term 1. My trouble is that I believe most of these changes work against us. How many or how much of an impact they will make is up in the air, but I’ll bet we see some.
2 Likes
I was talking specifically about the notion that people are elected based solely on their celebrity, skin color, or gender. I agree, in general, that the experiment is working fine.
It’s hard to know what drives a voting public as it is fluid. The variety of personalities that have occupied elected office just since 1970 has been all over the map. Right now, tapping into people’s anger, anxiety and fear seem to be the ticket. I think the only distinct advantage celebrity gives you is name recognition. And that’s important at first, but that wanes as your opponents become more well known.
I know what does not work, celebrity endorsement. That not only does not seem to help, it seems to hurt.
Trump’s populace policies (lies) are what got him elected over the corrupt Clinton.
Celebrity and Politics. I think she’s right about what we just saw at the Golden Globes. A lot of brilliant deflection. I hope she’s wrong in her conclusions, that maybe we’ve entered an age of celebrity and won’t be going back anytime soon. Thoughts?
Deflection as a media strategy has become an art form. Its purpose is to avoid answering a charge by misdirecting it and confusing the issue. It’s often used during crisis.
There are classics of the genre. After Princess Diana died in August 1997, the British press came under severe pressure, accused of literally driving the poor half-mad woman to her death. The paparazzi had chased her like jackals, raced after her car in the tunnel, surrounded it, and taken pictures after the crash. Fleet Street hunkered down in confusion, perhaps even some guilt. Then some genius noticed Buckingham Palace wasn’t flying a flag at half-staff. The tabloids rushed to front-page it: The cold Windsors, disrespecting Diana in death as they had in life. They shifted the focus of public ire. Suddenly there was no more talk of grubby hacks. Everyone was mad at the queen.
Another: In the run-up to the 2016 presidential election, Monica Lewinsky had a problem. Hillary Clinton was running, which meant the Monica story would be regularly resurrected. If she took a step wrong she’d be targeted by ferocious Clinton staffers. In any case she’d be hounded by the press: Monica, how do you feel now about being slimed as a stalker? Have you forgiven Hillary for calling you a “narcissistic Looney Tune”?
Ms. Lewinsky had gone into virtual hiding in 2008, when Hillary last ran, and didn’t want to do it again. So in 2014, just before the cycle got serious, she rather brilliantly wrote a piece for Vanity Fair in which she announced yes, she’d been a victim in a national scandal and the true culprit was . . . the press, the internet and the “feedback loop of defame and shame.”
In fact she was the Clintons’ victim, but she successfully deflected your gaze. Once Mrs. Clinton’s people understood Monica would be taking shots not at Hillary but at Matt Drudge, Ms. Lewinsky’s problem went away.
The best deflection has some truth in it. The Windsors were a chilly lot, and the internet does amplify a personal humiliation.
I thought of all this last weekend as I watched the Golden Globes. Hollywood has known forever about abuse, harassment and rape within its ranks. All the true powers in the industry—the agencies, the studios—have one way or another been complicit. And so, in the first awards show after the watershed revelations of 2017, they understood they would not be able to dodge the subject. They seized it and redirected it. They boldly declared themselves the heroes of the saga. They were the real leaders in the fight against sexual abuse. They dressed in black to show solidarity, they spoke truth to power.
They went so far, a viewer would be forgiven for thinking that they were not upset because they found out about Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey, et al. They were upset, as Glenn Reynolds noted on Twitter , that you found out, and thought less of them. Anyway, they painted themselves as heroes of the struggle.
Deflection is brilliant, wicked, and tends to work.
When something works you’ll be seeing more of it, in entertainment and politics. Keep your eyes sharp.
When Oprah Winfrey spoke, she brought the crowd to their feet, which gave rise to a new wave of speculation about whether she will run for president. I would be surprised if she did. She has what looks like a richly enjoyable life. She’s never been brutalized in the way that national contenders are. If in the past few decades she’s been insulted to her face, or even rudely interrupted, it has gone unrecorded. But to run for president is to be insulted every day. I think sometimes of what Gov. Chris Christie said to debate moderator John Harwood in 2015: “Even in New Jersey, what you’re doing is called rude.”
But could she win? Absolutely.
Oprah is stable. Oprah is smart. Oprah is truly self-made. She has a moving personal story. She has dignity and, more important, sees the dignity in others. She is fully wired into modern media; she helped invent modern media. Reporters and editors are awed by her. People experience her not as radical but moderate. She has been a living-room presence for two generations and is enormously popular. The first poll, published Wednesday, had her leading President Trump 48% to 38%.
It would all depend on what she wants and, if she decides she wants it, whether she could accept what goes with it.
But it freaks you out, doesn’t it? Not that American presidents now don’t have to have the traditional credentials and governmental experience, but that maybe they can’t be fully accomplished and appropriate because that’s boring. History has been turned on its head. In falling in love with celebrity and personality, we are acting not like a tough and grounded country but a frivolous, shallow one.
And yes, of course Donald Trump changed it all. When he walked through the door he blew out the jambs. He left a jagged opening big enough that anyone could walk through after him. He was like a cartoon character that bursts through a wall leaving a him-shaped hole. Last April I had a disagreement with a friend, a brilliant journalist who said when the Trump era is over, we will turn for safety to the old ways. We will return to normalcy. Suddenly we’ll see the mystique of the solid two-term governor in the gray suit, the veteran senator with the bad haircut. After all the drama of Mr. Trump, normality will have a new charisma.
No I said, I see just the opposite. We will not go back for a long time, maybe ever. We are in the age of celebrity and the next one will and can be anything—Nobel laureate, movie star, professional wrestler, talk-show host, charismatic corporate executive.
The political class can bemoan this—the veteran journalists, the senators and governors, the administrators of the federal government. But this is a good time to remind ourselves that it was the failures of the political class that brought our circumstances about.
When at least half the country no longer trusts its political leaders, when people see the detached, cynical and uncaring refusal to handle such problems as illegal immigration, when those leaders commit a great nation to wars they blithely assume will be quickly won because we’re good and they’re bad and we’re the Jetsons and they’re the Flintstones, and while they were doing that they neglected to notice there was something hinky going on with the financial sector, something to do with mortgages, and then the courts decide to direct the culture, and the IRS abuses its power, and a bunch of nuns have to file a lawsuit because the government orders them to violate their conscience . . .
Why wouldn’t people look elsewhere for leadership? Maybe the TV star’s policies won’t always please you, but at least he’ll distract and entertain you every day. The other ones didn’t manage that!
The idea that a lot had to go wrong before we had a President Trump, and the celebrity who follows him, has gotten lost in time, as if someone wanted to bury it.
Sometimes I see a congressman or senator shrug and say, in explanation of something outlandish, “It’s Trump.” And I think: Buddy, you’ve been on the Hill 20 years, and we didn’t get to this pass only because of him. That’s a deflection.
9 Likes
I think they can pull votes but aren’t qualified and should stay out of it. I want them in office about as much as I want them filling in for my Dr or auto mechanic. In light of our current political gong show it probably doesn’t matter.
1 Like