Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

H2O Man

(73,537 posts)
Wed Aug 19, 2015, 12:25 PM Aug 2015

Rulers

“Comedians have often suggested that Ronald Reagan’s immense popularity might have been helped by television-induced confusion. But I would like to make the case that this was concretely true, and that it’s not so funny. …Because of his background, Reagan handled television as president with astonishing skill and power. He understood, as no one did before, that on television, style supersedes content. The way you behave and look is more important than what you say and do. He knew that complexity and historical perspective do not come across on TV as well as simplicity, bald assertion, the heavy use of symbolic content, and the appeal to formulaic values, deeply imbedded in Americans by previous decades of television and film. Good vs. Evil, America vs. The Enemy…..”
-- Jerry Mander; In the Absence of the Sacred; Sierra Club Books; 1991; pages 90-91..


Does this sound strangely familiar? Perhaps remind you of a current republican candidate, who is doing unexpectedly well in the presidential primary contest? Someone who lacks substance, but is confusing the “experts” by his ability to surf the waves of hatred, fear, and frustration of their party, right to the top of the dung heap? To prove to be more than the “flavor of the week” fad candidate of the early 2012 republican contest?

Republicans today are as oblivious to who Ronald Reagan was, as they were in 1980 and ‘84, when they believed that he was red, white, and blue, apple pie, and the bible incarnate. The man who used symbols to his advantage has become the very symbol of all he never was. This is sadly proven by something as obvious as the republican inability to process the facts of the Iran-Contra scandals, while attacking President Obama for “arming” Iran -- the absolute opposite of reality. As the old saying goes, you can’t make this shit up.

In order to dull the public’s senses to the point of making them accept the unacceptable, to look forward to an evening of mistaking having their being be yanked out of them as “entertainment,” they must be doused with a pain-killer …..a social Novocain to dull their senses, especially common sense. To accept the non-reality of Reality TV. Donald Trump’s status as the leading republican contender is solid evidence that this is the case for a significant segment of the republican party.

“Did you know we are ruled by TV,” Jim Morrison asked in his American Prayer? The drunken artist had experimented with collective behavior, before finding that crowds rarely could be controlled once they reached a certain point. Rather, the unconscious crowd becomes the monster that C. G. Jung warned of, vulnerable to supporting an image of a “leader” that exists only in the darkest recesses of their minds. “Now it’s a monster, and will not obey,” as Steppenwolf sang.

I think it’s fair to say that Trump entered the contest, with the goal of knee-capping Jeb Bush. It seems likely that he did so, believing that this would be helpful to the person he assumed would be the Democratic nominee. However, his campaign has created an energy that surprised even him, and he has come to believe that he can actually become president. Or, of course, it is entirely possible that he entered the contest fully intent upon winning. That’s a distinction that really isn’t important right now.

What is important is that an ugly force is gaining strength in America, and while the Trump phenomenon is its visible surface, it has a momentum beneath the surface that poses a serious danger. The world stage is very different today, Whereas President Reagan could satisfy the public with his 1983 invasion of Grenada -- an event that only the most cowardly could justify, much less pretend was a noble exercise of American power -- the tensions between the US and the rest of the world make such cowboy diplomacy much riskier now.

I do not delude myself into thinking that I know “The Answer.” It might be easier to believe that backing a single candidate offered security. Or perhaps a lobotomy? But neither are satisfactory alternatives.

But I do know that everything is connected -- that truly, every person plays a role in what direction our society will move in. Obviously, voting is important. Yet, it goes way beyond that. As individuals, we need to be consciously aware of our everyday actions, and make every effort to not “feed” that monster, that growing collective force of anger and hostility that is saturating our culture. That may sound trite, I know. But I much prefer being part of a Peace Movement, than of an Anti-War Movement.

Peace,
H2O Man

13 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Rulers (Original Post) H2O Man Aug 2015 OP
I read "It Can't Happen Here" a long time ago... TreasonousBastard Aug 2015 #1
Very good. H2O Man Aug 2015 #3
A most excellent post. mmonk Aug 2015 #2
What were H2O Man Aug 2015 #4
We laugh at our own peril, surely. . . n/t annabanana Aug 2015 #5
Exactly. H2O Man Aug 2015 #6
A 'most' excellent OP malaise Aug 2015 #7
Thanks, Buddy! H2O Man Aug 2015 #8
Since the evening news H2O Man Aug 2015 #9
Personally, watching the evening news is a thing of the past, the long past mrdmk Aug 2015 #11
Exactly! Very important H2O Man Aug 2015 #12
Kicking because this is a good read. Thank you for sharing. n/t Hotler Aug 2015 #10
Thank you. H2O Man Aug 2015 #13

TreasonousBastard

(43,049 posts)
1. I read "It Can't Happen Here" a long time ago...
Wed Aug 19, 2015, 12:35 PM
Aug 2015

and it really scared the crap out of me because it showed how it really could happen here. It's fiction, and it's a stretch, but it was written long before TV and Nixon's beard problem, to say nothing about Reagan and Trump.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Can%27t_Happen_Here

It Can't Happen Here is a semi-satirical 1935 political novel by American author Sinclair Lewis. Published during the rise of fascism in Europe, the novel describes the rise of Berzelius "Buzz" Windrip, a populist United States Senator who is elected to the presidency after promising drastic economic and social reforms while promoting a return to patriotism and traditional values. After his election, Windrip takes complete control of the government and imposes a plutocratic/totalitarian rule with the help of a ruthless paramilitary force, in the manner of Adolf Hitler and the SS. The novel's plot centers on journalist Doremus Jessup's opposition to the new regime and his subsequent struggle against it as part of a liberal rebellion. Reviewers at the time, and literary critics ever since, have emphasized the connection with Louisiana politician Huey Long, who was preparing to run for president in the 1936 election when he was assassinated in 1935 just prior to the novel's publication.

H2O Man

(73,537 posts)
6. Exactly.
Wed Aug 19, 2015, 02:36 PM
Aug 2015

Trump as an individual person is perhaps amusing, and the troubles he is causing the republican party may be entertaining. The amount of oxygen he sucks out of the media coverage of the primary contests is annoying. But what is actually happening before our eyes is no joke.

mrdmk

(2,943 posts)
11. Personally, watching the evening news is a thing of the past, the long past
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 04:48 AM
Aug 2015


I read the newspapers instead. It keeps me from breaking a lot of T.V. sets...

You and I have had conversations in the past about Trump. His public speaking is an exercise in propaganda 101, give the audience fifty percent truth and fill the rest with crap. Trump's election bid is not doing this country and by extension the world any good. Maybe he is having too much fun with his campaign. It will not be much fun for Trump when the media turns him.

What you say about Reagan is true. The television made him. At the same time, there were many in print who torn Reagan to shreds. The only thing that save Reagan's image was he only had eight years in office. One hundred thirty-eight convicted administration officials, what does that say? One more year and the man himself would have been doing jail time if not for anything else, incompetence. Warren G. Harding cannot hold a candle to Reagan, considering that Reagan's name was and still is being put on buildings, bridges, hospitals, airports, etc., to this day he is being held up like some sort of saint.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_administration_scandals

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/ALLEN/ch6.html

Peace and Love, Keep up the good work H2O Man


H2O Man

(73,537 posts)
12. Exactly! Very important
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 11:43 AM
Aug 2015

point: the "Ronald Reagan" of television was distinct from the one in print. Those who think in the context of the "reel" world believed he was as heroic as a flag; while those capable of reading knew he was fronting for the most criminal gang to ever occupy the White House. And that he was a petty, mean-spirited, lying carp.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Rulers