August 3, 2004
Summer reading…
If you have a few free hours this week, let me suggest a book to read: Constructing the Political Spectacle by Murray Edelman. It’s a rather dense, but short, academic book with a postmodern spin, but don’t let that put you off. What Edelman has to say is particularly important today. One of his main contentions is that government creates spectacles to keep the people busy thinking about fears and crises rather than governance.
Posted by acline | August 3, 2004 | Posted in: Main |
That assumes that there is some monolithic “government” that can forment these crises. I realize that the “wag the Dog” theory has gained a lot of credence in recent years, and even more with the ascendence of Bush and Rove. But it seems to me (and, in fairness, I haven’t read the book) that the government is more often reacting to things in such a way that if often inadvertently creates a crises. Maybe I’m not cynical enough, but that seems more likely to me than intent to keep people from thinking. And, yes, I realize the current alert raises issues. But I still doubt the existence of a systematic effort to keep from thinking about governance. (that’s not to say that administrations don’t take advantage of situations to further their partisan interests.)
MWS…we’re not talking about a systematic effort here. Edelman is talking about the normal rhetoric of governance in the American republic. No cabal required.
acline,
When you say it “creates” spectacles, to me that implies some purposeful intent. I don’t think that there is an intent to create “bread and circuses” simply to distract people. What there is is a need to simplify and portray issues in stark tones. I work in antitrust in the federal government and it is very frustrating to see the way that Congress demogogues (in my opinion) on very complex issues in order to satisfy their constituents’ (or their own) needs for black and white answers. I blame the public for this more than the politicians. Most people I know hate the idea that there may not be simple solutions. People want certainty. In my opinion, a lot of our problems in foreign policy over the years (not just now) stem from this need to have certainty and unwillingness to accept that many situations do not lend themselves to certainty. I would say that is true in journalism as well–I see many journalists that want paint a “narrative” as you call it and not willing to recognize ambivalence.
MWS…yes, “creates” is a bit troublesome in that regard, although it can indicate a result (of an act) that had little or no prior intention.
So, acline, how many times have you seen Manchurinan Candidate and Fahrenheit 911? It’s starting to show.
Ms. DeMornay…Nada and once. But, really, the Edelman book is not a wag-the-dog rant.