The Postmodern Presidency 2.0:
McCain Campaign: "...These Little Facts Don't Really Matter"
And then there's this:
F*ck you, American democracy.
or, to be more specific:
Perception is more important than reality.
This is such a loathsome stew of falsehood and moral corruption that one hardly knows where to start untangling it. But an important, high-level point: winning the election is more important to the McCain campaign than the truth, and it is more important than maintaining the kind of unity, civility, and mutual trust that allows America to exist as a democracy.
But you want to get specific? Well, let's ask about the claim that Palin is an "insurgent." Well, what does that mean? If it just means that she's new, then he's just repeating something that he already said. If it means that she wants to break with bad, institutionalized ways of doing things, then, see, the "little facts"--like whether she actually opposed the BtN--do matter. That is: if you care about what Sarah Palin is actually like, then you care about the ("little") facts about what she has actually done. If you don't care about those facts, then all you care about is something like the marketing of Sarah Palin(tm) Brand Candidate Substitute. Or about something like: is "Sarah Palin" an entertaining fictional character?
The GOP is sticking with the formula they've been using since 2000 (and, to some extent, since the Reagan administration): spin up a fictional candidate that tugs at the heartstrings of the people who aren't paying very close attention. Demonize the Dems. Drag everything into the mud. Weave a plausible fantasy (or "narrative" to use the prevailing and highly irritating locution), facts be damned. It's just "narratives" all the way down.
Welcome, friends, to the postmodern presidency version 2.0.
God help us all.
McCain Campaign: "...These Little Facts Don't Really Matter"
And then there's this:
John Feehery, a Republican strategist, said the campaign is entering a stage in which skirmishes over the facts are less important than the dominant themes that are forming voters' opinions of the candidates.
"The more the New York Times and The Washington Post go after Sarah Palin, the better off she is, because there's a bigger truth out there and the bigger truths are she's new, she's popular in Alaska and she is an insurgent," Feehery said. "As long as those are out there, these little facts don't really matter."
Shorter John Feehery:
F*ck you, American democracy.
or, to be more specific:
Perception is more important than reality.
This is such a loathsome stew of falsehood and moral corruption that one hardly knows where to start untangling it. But an important, high-level point: winning the election is more important to the McCain campaign than the truth, and it is more important than maintaining the kind of unity, civility, and mutual trust that allows America to exist as a democracy.
But you want to get specific? Well, let's ask about the claim that Palin is an "insurgent." Well, what does that mean? If it just means that she's new, then he's just repeating something that he already said. If it means that she wants to break with bad, institutionalized ways of doing things, then, see, the "little facts"--like whether she actually opposed the BtN--do matter. That is: if you care about what Sarah Palin is actually like, then you care about the ("little") facts about what she has actually done. If you don't care about those facts, then all you care about is something like the marketing of Sarah Palin(tm) Brand Candidate Substitute. Or about something like: is "Sarah Palin" an entertaining fictional character?
The GOP is sticking with the formula they've been using since 2000 (and, to some extent, since the Reagan administration): spin up a fictional candidate that tugs at the heartstrings of the people who aren't paying very close attention. Demonize the Dems. Drag everything into the mud. Weave a plausible fantasy (or "narrative" to use the prevailing and highly irritating locution), facts be damned. It's just "narratives" all the way down.
Welcome, friends, to the postmodern presidency version 2.0.
God help us all.
posted by Winston Smith at
9:20 AM
1 Comments:
Hey there, this is a defense of the word "narrative," which is, admittedly annoying and used in all kinds of ways that are not helpful.
That said, a story is not a narrative. The NYT has a story, the WaPo has a story, NPR has a story. Combined, they are a narrative.
Al Gore creating the internet, discovering Love Canal, and wearing earth tones based on wardrobe advice are narratives. It is the "story" that makes the rounds in all the important information (or, at least, supposedly information) providers.
GWB being a "compassionate conservative" is the same, just as McCain is a "maverick." These are narratives, that is, conventional wisdom that is espoused without evidence, without facts, without anything other than major media outlets deciding to run with them.
We are all familiar with the press as 8 year old soccer players. They all follow the ball, no one steps back and plays their position (supposedly offering us a better idea of what the truth is, or the facts are). The ball is the narrative. Individual attempts to show how close each reporter or media outlet is to the ball are the stories, but they all sound the same.
It is almost the same as data (narrative) vs. datum (story) except that objective analysis is not involved, nor is it pursued, or even desire.
That is all for this little rant.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home