The Message Screen and the Blank Screen
November 6, 2007
If I had one wish for American politics over the next year, it would be that every candidate give up the annoying message screens that have become ubiquitous behind political speakers. This is not a frivolous wish. Renouncing these message screens would signify something important: politics is not about a slogan mindlessly repeated until it is the conventional wisdom—which is pretty much the way the country has been run for the past seven years.
There exists a cynical group of political managers who believe that voters should be given a shorthand of political talking points and undeniable keywords.. and that they won't bother examining anything too deeply. Further, these managers believe that slogan-vulnerable people are the ones that actually decide elections.. and so there is no need to thoughtfully respond to thoughtful critiques. This strategy may actually work, but it represents one of the danger points in a democracy: the possibility that democracy can be managed.
When I worked at Carl's Jr. during summers, I remember how an advertising campaign came out praising the great service or smiles that could be found at our restaurants. The slogan could draw customers, and was plenty catchy, but it was disconnected from our actual work. In other words, nobody gave us any lessons on service or smiling, the idea had simply been dreamt up back in some boardroom, subcontracted to a PR firm, and then broadcast to the world. There was no real connection between the advertising and our work. Something similar could be said about the disconnect between slogans and policy-making.
I can think of nothing more inspiring than a willingness to stand in front of a blank screen and speak ideas. Cut the flags; cut mystical scenery; cut the repeating slogans. Admit alternative ideas and seek reasonable compromises. The only problem with this idea is that it takes two honest parties to conduct themselves in that way, and the Republicans appear to be addicted to sloganeering and simple framing as a way of life. When up against an opponent that is willing to hammer a simple message at every stop, one must hammer back a counter message. But still, it is a sorry state of affairs..
In the most recent edition of the New Yorker (Nov. 12, 2007, unavailable online) Elizabeth Kolbert's article "Unconventional Crude" discusses the environmentally dirty efforts to extract crude oil from the vast tar sands of Alberta. Near the end she notes how despite local and federal unease with the environmental consequences, the work goes on. A leader in the Liberal Party is quoted as saying: "There is no environmental minister on earth who can stop the oil from coming out of the sand, because the money is too big." When the stakes become millions upon millions of dollars.. even billions of dollars in the long run.. then the push becomes too strong. That kind of money buys elections.. it buys towns.. it buys jobs. It bulldozes everyone who stands in its way.. not physically, but with words repeated and then repeated some more.. with words pasted behind a candidate.. with words sending out a dubious smoke screen of legitimacy for a self-serving opinion.
American politics is in a similar place. The possible gains that come from access to political power are too great. The temptation to manage a democracy will continue to grow. George W. Bush and his associates have used their power to directly benefit the powerful.. and I feel certain that a candidate like Hillary Clinton would go some way toward easing the degree of this national thievery (and therefore if nominated she will get my vote). But I doubt she would foreswear the slogans and managed democracy of her predecessor.. and that remains the central issue with respect to the long term health of our democracy.
