The (Un)Civil War: Now Playing!
I must admit: I didn’t watch the debate Monday Night. I didn’t watch
the one on the Thursday either. I saw none of them, in fact. Unconcerned?
Uninterested? Not at all. I’m intensely invested in who wins this year’s
election. It’s only that the debates, and the endless prognostications leading
up to, and equally endless recaps following, these slugfests, have a specific
purpose, and one that I find increasingly disquieting: to churn the waters of
The theatre of politics has taken center stage in this
election, produced by the media (both left-and right-leaning varieties), sold
by the campaigns of both parties and snapped up eagerly by the electorate like opening
night tickets to “Iron Man 3.” The debates have much less to do
with substance and all to do with narrative
and conflict. Swooping storylines of
defeat and resurgence, villainy and heroism, writ large and with the subtlety
worthy of Michael Bay. There’s no room for complexity, or nuance; our candidate
must be golden like Rocky Balboa, thrown against the ropes but coming up
swinging; the Other Guy must possess a hulking maleficence worthy of the Soviet
Drago. That’s what sells the tickets!
here, ones worth fighting for and promoting. And yes, I understand the intent:
to fill campaign coffers and goad a sleepy, nose-picking electorate to the
voting booth. It’s just the emotional hyperbole that leaves me anxious and exhausted. We
want bipartisanship, but how is that possible when we also demand blood and
fear apocalypse? The first election I remember was between McGovern and Nixon
(am I dating myself here?). In school we held our own elections and discussed
positions. Now, my seven-year-old niece comes home in tears, distraught because it was a fact that if
the other guy won there would be the absolute certainty of war. How can fight our way
back to the center from that?
a Romney man, so does that make Obama Master Blaster?
media, the barrage of constant political updates that ping from our little
screens, Liliputian cries of repudiation and outrage, often more interesting in
scoring points off of verbal mis-steps and tactical errors than the actual
issues. We delight in the crude (but pretty funny) characterization of our Opponent
while castigating the Other Side for doing the same thing to Our Man. Behind a
thicket of like-minded friends, we more than vilify the opposition;
increasingly we cannot even fathom
them. The other day a friend on Facebook “liked” the other side; I stared at
the post in disbelief. How could he be my friend if he liked that monster? How
was he so colossally misinformed? The fact that he, too, was thinking the same
thing about me (that is, if he had not already turned off my feed) does not
diminish my incomprehension.
employing conflict and narrative… with a twist ending! Soylent Green is people!
maybe things will calm down. I doubt this. I’m sure the storyboards
are already being prepped for the Most Important Election of Our Times—Part 2!
We dearly love a sequel. Unfortunately, that means four more years of partisan
roadblocks and government stagnation (remember the whole “house divided” trope?). Maybe, just maybe, we could try curbing our taste for explosions and shoot-outs
and get in line for something quieter, something with a little more dialogue. You
know, like those grown-up movies.
Topics: Biden • debates • election • Mad Max Beyond the Thunderdome • Pastor Phil Snider • Paul Ryan • Political Kombat • Songify • Sting
Hello, James! Since you gave me a personal invite, I could hardly pass up the opportunity to comment so…here goes:
I agree with you. Well, not entirely, but mostly. Here's my secret confession- I didn't watch the debates either. Not a single one. Not in real time, at least. I watched snippets afterwards, but I somehow managed to be "busy" during each one of the debates. Why?
Because they ARE theatre. High stakes, winner-take-all theatre that reduces our politics to the level of Thunderdome. Obama lost the first debate because he didn't go after Romney and had no "zingers." Last night, Obama wiped the floor with Romney because he had a quiver full of them. And what do people remember about the debate? Not the discussion of whether or not we should arm the Syrian rebels. They remember "horses and bayonets." Obama wins!
Of course, that's the problem. We should be having nice, boring policy discussions but who the fuck wants THAT? We want fireworks and rainbows and ponies and smart-alecky comments! We want…spectacle.
That's why it is unlikely you'll see men who look like Nixon or Eisenhower or Johnson elected president ever again. This is American Idol for the political set and we need pretty candidates, not old men.
But the thing is: the stakes ARE high. We need to win. Not Democrats. I mean SANE PEOPLE. Because I'll tell ya: the other side is nuts. They didn't used to be, but they are now. They've careened so far to the right as to be unreconizable to my father's generation of Republicans. They used to be pro-small government. Now they are anti-government. They want to run an organization they are against. Loons. They're a bunch of loons.
And I know, that makes me sound as partisan crazy as them. Think I care? I know I'm right and fuck them. Sounds like their philosophy, doesn't it? Am I as guilty of them as mindlessly demonizing the other side? Bet your ass I am. But the difference between me and them is:
I am really considering a third party at this point, whether it be Jill or Gary, not sure yet. This other stuff is ludicrous.
Love you though.
Kevin Theis is a Chicago- based actor extraordinaire, director, author of a best-selling book (Confessions of a Transylvanian: get it) and my new choice for President.
Yes.Yes. And Yes.
(I have no answers, though.)It is blood sport, and it makes me sick because it is too important for it to be a game. But, I no longer know HOW to engage the other side.
Third party candidates would be a good idea, Deb, but don't let yourself be fooled. The Green Party or Libertarians are not able to compete with Republicans and Democrats on a national stage, partly because of money, but not only that. The third party candidates might be great on the environment, say, but they have absolutely no foreign policy experience or economic experience. Good intentions are not enough.
A presidential ticket needs to have practical, hands-on experience creating tax policy or negotiating a nuclear treaty, not just policy papers. Without a robust national party behind them, the third parties just don't have the depth of experience for the job. Not yet anyway. People deserve to know what a candidate for president has already accomplished and in addition, to knowing their vision for the future.
The best solution I can come up with is to vote for Barack because he agrees with me on major issues (economy policy, gay rights, end the war, healthcare, reproductive choice, etc.) and hold his feet to the fire on the issues that I find him lagging in (environment, drone strikes, gay marriage, single-payer health care, immigration reform, etc.).
No politician is going to agree with me all the time. Hell, even James doesn't agree with me all the time.