dagblog - Comments for "When Etch A Sketches Go Bad"

If you smear someone long

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 20:59:54 +0000

In reply to Of course it's caricature.

If you smear someone long enough, you can make Sarah Palin a whore, Obama a foreign-born Muslim, Hillary a vicious killer of Vince Foster who hangs dildos from the Christmas Tree and drinks her own urine, John Kerry a coward who ran from service and faked his medals, George H.W. Bush an uncaring politician because he looked at his watch, and Al Gore an insecure politician who hired a consultant to tell him to wear earth tones.

In your X-Files theory, these tricks work only because there's a bit of truth in there somewhere Though they spent $30 million investigating Clinton for Whitewater and never found that truth. For some reason you can't accept that sometimes "caricature" is just brazen, made-up bullshit. That still works if echoed long enough on 5 different channels. Was Acorn really helping out prostitutes while a pimp in full regalia stood by? Was there truth in there somewhere because this caricature took off in conservative-land? Would there have been truth in there if he had trapped the CNN reporter on a boat of sex toys?

Regarding George Bush as cowboy? He made up his own image with ranch and cowboy hat and attitude. Dunce? He mispronounced words and came up with malapropisms dozens of time on TV and public speeches. Oilman? Well he was, whether he was terribly successful or not. Where's the caricature, vs. saying Gore wasn't really from Tennessee because he'd gone to prep school in the northeast?

I don't by any means think caricature is new, whether it's the Nash cartoons in the 1800's or stuff written on Pompei bath stalls before the eruption. And caricature can be more or less accurate, it can be biting and over-the-top but still representative (Gulliver's Travels?), and it can be libel and slander, based on nothing but fantasies. For some reason, we've invested our media with the duty of just making stuff up, and then backing their right to do it. Not healthy for a democracy, since they don't have our best interests in mind.

As for Etch-a-Sketch, it's as boring as calling John Kerry a flip-flopper because he voted against it before he voted for it - something most every congressperson does. I'd rather see an intelligent caricature that sticks showing Romney stripping corporations of their assets and dumping the carcass and obligations on the American taxpayer. That would be a service.

Of course it's caricature.

Michael Wolraich — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:48:34 +0000

In reply to Your argument is

Of course it's caricature. That's the whole point. There is little disagreement here about .

1) You think that caricature is unconstrained, that if you just smear someone long enough or cleverly enough, you can make them into whatever you want. I say that caricature must start with an element of perceived truth, "perceived" being a critical caveat.

2) You think that caricature is inherently pernicious. I think that it is often pernicious--welfare and Acorn being great examples--but can also serve a valuable purpose by emphasizing a critical flaw. GW as "cowboy," for example, emphasizes his reckless swagger. GW as "dunce" emphasizes his lack of critical thinking. GW as "princeling" emphasizes his elitism. GW as "oilman" emphasizes his industrial bias. These are all caricatures, exaggerations that mask the complexity (yes, even GW has complexity), but they reveal elements of his governing style

3) You think that caricature is some recent spawn of shallow, namby-pamby modern journalism. But it's as old as democracy. Probably older. Do you think that the old hard-hitting muckrakers of the progressive era weren't caricaturists? Try reading them.

In a modern society with a

Elusive Trope — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 13:51:51 +0000

In reply to Your argument is

In a modern society with a vast population there is always going to be a dance between the media, politicians, and the public that ends up being some grotesque performance. Up there on the stage: The media driven by the desire for profits (among other things), the politicians driven by the desire to be elected (among other things), the public driven by a desire to be entertained (among other things). We really can't expect anything other than what we see. One can fix more blame on one more than the other, but it really is a futile attempt to gain some sense of order. One only has to look at the pamphlet wars in the early political days of our new Republic to see that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

The thing to focus on isn't that there are still large number of folks who believe that Obama is a Muslim, but that such a candidate can still win a presidential election.

Note that the "robotic Al"

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 09:38:10 +0000

In reply to I like Clint as a human,

Note that the "robotic Al" jokes are describing Al Gore, not made up like the stuff about being a serial liar. His hokey southern robotic manners would have an effect on his management style and communications with the public, so it is relevant to candidacy (though he might be a more effective staff handler than the chaotic Bill Clinton). And if you notice, the cartoons shown are not abusive - they're just playful.

Whether Gore had to run away from Clinton's blowjobs, or felt truly offended - I don't rightly care. Finding the right way of handling Clinton fatigue was not a trivial problem for him, and he was working against multiple hostile press narratives his whole campaign. Even kissing his wife was used against him. What a bunch of bastards.

(BTW, Bush lied about his Social Security promises, and it was an obvious lie when he said it - but the press didn't care. They were too busy hacking out 7th-grader narratives that they wouldn't have to fact check - that would be work and all.)

I like Clint as a human,

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 08:48:34 +0000

In reply to DoubleP, con respetto Gore

I like Clint as a human, politician, libertarian, director. But Clint isn't geeky enough to sit down and make good internet and toxic waste and government waste policy over a decade or three in Congress and the White House

So we're comparing apples and oranges.

Yes, Gore is a bit robotic and goofy. Big shit. He has much better ideas for federal government than Clint will ever have. If we won't defend our better candidates against lies, then we deserve the "guy we'd rather have a beer with", even if that's an alcoholic who's given up drink and has lots of dumb ideas.

Your argument is

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 08:41:37 +0000

In reply to A big part of politics is

Your argument is self-fulfilling. "Good candidates naturally resist negative definitions" - and if they don't, then they're de facto bad candidates?

Good looking candidates have an advantage over bad looking candidates (unless you're female, in which case both will be held against you).

Let's rephrase your statement slightly: "There is a real art to bullshitting someone's attributes or flaws into an caricature that resonates."

Was George H.W. Bush really astounded by that checkout scanner, and did it really say something insightful based on his New England background, oil connections and CIA days? Or was it simply a useful prop in a traditional "old guy vs. young guy" contest to make fund of the older one as out-of-date and not hip? Did it say anything meaningful about Bush's role in Iran Contra or his excellent job running Gulf War I the year before or whether he'd help dig our way out of the short recession?

Was focusing on John Edwards' hair a breakthrough in political analysis, or was it just a cheap shot that ignored the more important flaws in his character, foundation for the poor, etc.?

Were the Swift Boat attacks reflective of John Kerry's character, providing us all a service, or were they turning a candidate's strengths into detriments through cheap manipulation and lies?

Was W's purchase of a "ranch" (with no cattle) 2 years before a presidential run a natural move exposing his inner cowboy nature, or a cheap exploitive prop that the press bought into just as they'd enjoyed Reagan's ranch?

You say it's hard to manipulate, but it's actually pretty easy - just fickle. If the candidate keeps feeding good stories - bullshit - to the press, they make the work easier, write the stories themselves. The press is always looking for a simply, funny, smartass way of describing the campaigns, and once they settle on a story, they don't switch for a while - they bludgeon it into the readers' subconscious.

As you say, "Regardless of the story's accuracy, it's working."

Well there you go - the truth goes wanting, but we got our telenovela - Rich Man, Poor Man, Beggerman, Thief.

"Now you can rail against politics as usual and shout about how we're all being duped by whomever you feel is duping us, but these narratives are powerful. You can't argue your way out of a good story."

You're the one claiming these stories say something serious about candidates, that it's not easy to make stuff up that's not true, but then you say "narratives are powerful" and "you can't argue your way out of a good story"? Which is it?

Look at how James O'Keefe knocked down Acorn - a bullshit pimp outfit that he didn't even wear to the organization - but the press ran with it as good fun, leaving out pertinent facts to make the story better, as he knew they would. And Acorn couldn't argue their way out of a good story.

Yes, Reagan ran on the welfare queen image of blacks in America, to great success. There's a real art to spinning the defenseless' character into shredded wheat and riding that humiliation to success.

What I think you're describing is simply caricature - candidates and media work with basic snippets that contain a teensy portion of the truth, and blow it up into a campaign theme. The less relevant, the better - like our Dowdian psychologist, who shows we understand the psyches of our candidates when we can discern why they wear 2-button jackets instead of 3-button jackets, or supposedly wear earth tones and cowboy boots vs. some other attire, and how that chink in the armor reflects on their suitability for office.

So we focus on who we'd rather have a beer with or whether a candidate might be Muslim and a non-American Kenyan. Glad it's so hard to make up an impression of a candidate.

I shook j f k's hand too but

jollyroger — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 06:25:24 +0000

In reply to D'accordo! And that's not to

I shook j f k's hand too but all I got was a propensity to fuck around

D'accordo! And that's not to

artappraiser — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 06:13:32 +0000

In reply to DoubleP, con respetto Gore

D'accordo! And that's not to say he didn't appear to be a good guy with a good heart, just very very wooden, uptight, whatevah you wanna call it......

Some of the old toons on that meme still make me laugh; two examples from Al's personal collection (from Clinton's first term, way pre-dating any Gore presidential campaign):

http://clinton1.nara.gov/White_House/EOP/OVP/images/washtoon.jpg

http://clinton1.nara.gov/White_House/EOP/OVP/images/wild.jpg

A big part of politics is

Michael Wolraich — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 01:54:45 +0000

In reply to The Etch-A-Sketch thing fits

A big part of politics is defining the candidate. If you're running a campaign, your objective is to define your own candidate positively and his opponent negatively. There is a real art to spinning someone's attributes or flaws into an caricature that resonates. Good candidates naturally resist negative definitions. Poor candidates tend to attract them.

Meanwhile, the media is also trying to define the candidates for different reasons. They're earning money by telling a story that entertains audiences and simplifies the complexity of the election. In 2000, the story was the dork versus the dunce. In 2012, the Republican primary story is the nutcase versus the opportunist. I think that Romney is more of an opportunist than Santorum is principled, but it doesn't really matter. Regardless of the story's accuracy, it's working.

Now you can rail against politics as usual and shout about how we're all being duped by whomever you feel is duping us, but these narratives are powerful. You can't argue your way out of a good story.

DoubleP, con respetto Gore

jollyroger — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 00:51:57 +0000

In reply to Oh come on now, you don't

DoubleP, con respetto Gore had a goodie stick shoved so far up his ass that he farted sparkles. His pearl clutching distaste for Bad Boy Bill & His Blowjobs caused him to run away from a winning record, more to the detriment of his campaign than any media mistreatment. A thought experiment: Clint Eastwood (once mayor of Carmel) runs for president. The media "buzz" is verbatim that attending Gore. Does it stick?