SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JohnM who wrote (4611)8/9/2003 8:59:11 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793745
 
Staging Politics as Entertainment
By BERNARD WEINRAUB - NEW YORK TIMES

LOS ANGELES - The Kennedy administration blurred the line between politics and entertainment. Ronald Reagan blurred the line even more, using hard-won skills as an actor to convey sincerity, passion, anger. Now, Arnold Schwarzenegger has crossed the line.

In announcing his candidacy for governor of California on the "Tonight" show with Jay Leno, Mr. Schwarzenegger, the former Mr. Universe and a multimillionaire Hollywood action star, has not only turned his political candidacy into a reality show but made politics and show business inseparable.

"Politics has slowly become entertainment, shouldn't entertainment be politics?" asked Leo Braudy, author of "The Frenzy of Renown: Fame and Its History."

Even Mr. Schwarzenegger's message to Mr. Leno ? "We're mad as hell and we're not taking it anymore" ? derives from the classic movie, "Network," when Peter Finch, as Howard Beale, an aging newsman, goes crazy on national television. Mr. Schwarzenegger said his message to both parties was, "You do your job and you do it well or else you're out ? and it's hasta la vista, baby." He was quoting his line from the "Terminator" films that made him a superstar in the 1980's and early 90's.

Mr. Schwarzenegger has begun his political campaign just as if he were opening a movie, making appearances on a nationally televised late night show, chatting with local television reporters, sitting with entertainment reporters, posing for photographers, signing autographs.

Less than two months ago (on June 26), Mr. Schwarzenegger showed up on "Tonight" to joke with Mr. Leno and sell his latest movie, "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines." Wednesday night, Mr. Schwarzenegger returned to sell his candidacy. From the onset of his career in the 1970's, Mr. Schwarzenegger, more than most actors, has displayed a media savvy, especially a willingness to appear on television to promote his movies.

"He's saving money by using free media," said Ted Harbert, a former top executive at NBC and a friend of Mr. Schwarzenegger. "When you have name recognition like him, you can go directly to the people."

Martin Kaplan, associate dean of the University of Southern California Annenberg School for Communication, who has written for movies and politicians, said: "Politics is now being conducted within the frame of show business. There's no longer any blurry line between show business and politics."

Mr. Schwarzenegger's entry into the race remains a risk for the actor. For one, the Leno audience, like many fans of "The Terminator," may not be a voting crowd. "He is appealing to his strengths ? the people who see the `Terminator' movies," said Mr. Braudy, the author. "But television will help him, too ? it's a short campaign, the amount of actual discussion of issues will be minimal. There won't be a lot of scrutiny."

In the meantime, politics in California is more entertaining than most television shows and movies made here.
nytimes.com



To: JohnM who wrote (4611)8/9/2003 9:54:51 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793745
 
Callifornia isn't completely certified as "Barking Mad" until Mark Steyn does a column on it.

The Gubernator?
By Mark Steyn
(Filed: 10/08/2003)

Profile: Arnold Schwarzenegger

The best scene in The Last Action Hero (1993) was a clip from Laurence Olivier's Hamlet. Arnold Schwarzenegger, edited into the 1948 monochrome and taking dear Larry's role as the eponymous ditherer, starts off the soliloquy, cuts it short and opens fire on the castle, all the while puffing on his stogie. As the unseen narrator puts it, "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark - and Hamlet is takin' out the trash!"

A week ago, it looked as if the roles had been reversed. The conventional wisdom was that Ah-nuld wasn't man enough for California politics. Instead of saying "Hasta la vista, Gray Davis!" and blowing the punk out of the Governor's office, he was nancying around in doublet and hose whimpering, "To be or not to be, that is the question". He'd been scared off. His Kennedy wife didn't want him to run, and, besides, too many people had too much dirt on too many of the sexual perks your big-time Hollywood star avails himself of over the years. He was going to wiggle out, no doubt promising that "Ah'll be back, maybe next election, or the one after, if my wife will let me."

And so not for the first time the experts underestimated Schwarzenegger. On Wednesday's Tonight Show, he announced that he was in. Something is rotten in the State of California - and Arnie is takin' out the trash! Collyvurnja, here he comes!

Whether or not he'll win, nobody can say for certain: the rules of the recall election are as whimsical as a sudden-death gameshow round. The standard line is that it's a "circus", but pre-Arnie it was more of a freak show, filled by various unsatisfying midgets: the pornographer Larry Flynt; the diminutive ex-sitcom-player Gary Coleman; a bounty hunter from Sacramento; the extravagantly-endowed self-proclaimed "Love Goddess" Angelyne (she's a one-woman circus, if only in the sense that she has a big top); and the wannabe celebrity, obscure populist and rumoured fourth Gabor sister Arianna Stassinopoulos Huffington, best remembered in Britain (if at all) as Bernard Levin's ex-squeeze. But no matter how many little clowns pour out of the miniature car, it is the entry of the muscleman that has made this a circus worth seeing.

Whatever happens, he has played his opening hand at a crowded table brilliantly. Arnold has wanted to be Governor of California for two decades, but October 7 represents his best shot. For one thing, there's no primary election in a recall campaign. In a normal election, Arnie wouldn't stand a chance of getting his watered-down "moderate Republicanism" past the death-before-electability crowd who dominate GOP primaries in California. He's unsound on almost everything that matters to them. On the other hand, that supposedly puts him closer to the average voter. As the commentator Andrew Sullivan put it, "Yay! A pro-gay, pro-choice, hard-ass Republican!"

Yet you don't have to be anti-abortion or unenthusiastic about gay marriage to question the hardness of Arnold's ass. When candidates run as "fiscally conservative but socially liberal", the former invariably buckles under the attendant costs of the latter. Arnold is married to Maria Shriver - a niece of Jack, Bobby and Ted Kennedy, and a daughter of George McGovern's running mate - and, as in many mixed marriages, the Democrat seems to have the upper hand ideologically.

But even a RINO - Republican In Name Only - can drive Democrats crazy, and, in desperation to find an attack angle, Dem operatives are currently testing three themes:

1. Arnold is a Nazi.

Okay, Arnold's not a Nazi. He was born in the Austrian town of Thal, but not until 1947, and thus was technically unable to join the Nazi Party no matter how much he may have wanted to. But he certainly has family ties to the Nazis. His wife's grandfather, Joe Kennedy, was one of America's most prominent Nazi sympathisers.

Oh, wait. That's not the Nazi family ties the Dems had in mind? No, as Katie Couric put it on NBC's Today Show, "He's the son of a Nazi Party member. He said he was prejudiced, before overcoming those feelings by working with the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Los Angeles, and the dean of the centre said an investigation of Schwarzenegger's late father, conducted at the actor's request, found no evidence of war crimes."

Sorry, folks, you'll have to do better than that. The more you bring up the "son of a Nazi" line, the more you remind voters of what Arnold is: an immigrant who escaped and transcended his past. You can't saddle a man who chose to be American with the baggage he left behind in the old country.

2. Arnold is unqualified.

Yes, he's not a professional politician. And that's a disadvantage? The professional politicians are the ones who got California into this mess. This is a "throw the bum out" election, so the successful challenger will be the one who looks least like the bum. Gray Davis has been on the public payroll his entire adult life: he represents the full-time political class. Arnold represents the other California: entrepreneurial energy, wit and invention, the California that understands that if Hollywood and Silicon Valley were run by "qualified" people like Davis we'd still be watching flickering silents and you'd need union-approved quill-feathers to send e-mail.

Arnold made his first business investment at 19, using savings from his bodybuilding contests to buy a failed Munich gym. He turned it around. The first really big money he made in America in the early 1970s came when he and a fellow bodybuilder started a bricklaying business. He's one of a very few actors who was a millionaire before he ever acted. And, if you think it's no big deal being the world's highest-paid movie star, you try it - with a guttural German accent so thick you can barely do dialogue and a body frame so large you're too goofy for playing love scenes. From his gym to his mail-order company to his masonry business to his shopping malls, Schwarzenegger has shown a consistent knack for exploiting the fullest financial value from even his most modest successes. Who would you say best embodies the spirit of California? The guy who has made all his own money? Or the fellows who've squandered everybody else's?

3. Arnold's had too many women.

Arnold has been married to Maria Shriver for 17 human years, which in celebrity years is the equivalent of a Diamond Jubilee. Any dirt Democrats dig up is going to have to be nuclear. When you've been a popular celebrity for 20 years, the only way you can be damaged is with something that's dramatically inconsistent with what the public thinks it knows about you. "Womanising" won't cut it, not for a movie star. If it's oral sex with a starlet in his trailer, the public will shrug. If it's beating up a pre-op transsexual hooker, you're in business. But in a two-month campaign anyone who wants to take him down is going to have to move fast.

Ever since he became a US citizen in 1983, Arnold has taken care, in his marriage and business interests, to remain politically viable. This is his window of opportunity: he's the man who seems most in tune with the moment. Is it likely that Californians have got themselves all whipped up with the Recall Fever just to install another rent-a-hack like Lieutenant-Governor Cruz Bustamante? Or will they figure, what the hell, let's go all the way and take a flyer on Arnie? Everything about this race - from the compressed schedule to the multiple candidates - favours him. "It's the most difficult decision I've made in my entire life, except the one I made in 1978 when I decided to get a bikini wax," he told NBC's Jay Leno, stealing Arianna Huffington's best line. Arnold waxes, everybody else wanes. Hasta la vista, Grayby.



To: JohnM who wrote (4611)8/10/2003 1:14:28 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793745
 
Remember that silly paper by some Academics on Conservatives last week? They made the mistake of using a line of Will's for an epigraph.

Theories Of Right Thinking

By George F. Will

Sunday, August 10, 2003; Page B07

This just in: Conservatism often is symptomatic of a psychological syndrome. It can involve fear, aggression, uncertainty avoidance, intolerance of ambiguity, dogmatic dislike of equality, irrational nostalgia and need for "cognitive closure," all aspects of the authoritarian personality.

Actually, this theory has been floating around academic psychology for half a century. It is reprised in "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," written by four professors for Psychological Bulletin.

"Motivated social cognition" refers to the "motivational underpinnings" of ideas, the "situational as well as dispositional variables" that foster particular beliefs. Notice: situations and dispositions -- not reasons. Professors have reasons for their beliefs. Other people, particularly conservatives, have social and psychological explanations for their beliefs. "Motivated cognition" involves ways of seeing and reasoning about the world that are unreasonable because they arise from emotional, psychological needs.

The professors note, "The practice of singling out political conservatives for special study began . . . [with a 1950] study of authoritarianism and the fascist potential in personality." The industry of studying the sad psychology of conservatism is booming. It began with a European mixture of Marxism and Freudianism. It often involves a hash of unhistorical judgments, including the supposedly scientific, value-free judgment that conservatives are authoritarians, and that fascists -- e.g., the socialist Mussolini and Hitler, the National Socialist who wanted to conserve nothing -- were conservatives.

The four professors now contribute "theories of epistemic and existential needs, and sociopolitical theories of ideology as individual and collective rationalizations" and "defensive motivations" -- defenses against fear of uncertainty and resentment of equality. The professors have ideas; the rest of us have emanations of our psychological needs and neuroses.

"In the post-Freudian world, the ancient dichotomy between reason and passion is blurred," say the professors, who do not say that their judgments arise from social situations or emotional needs rather than reason. The professors usefully survey the vast literature churned out by the legions of academics who have searched for the unsavory or patlogical origins of conservatism (fear of death? harsh parenting? the "authoritarian personality"?).

But it is difficult to take the professors' seriousness seriously when they say, in an essay responding to a critique of their paper, that Ronald Reagan's "chief accomplishment, in effect, was to roll back both the New Deal and the 1960s." His "accomplishment"? So that is why Social Security and Medicare disappeared.

The professors write, "One is justified in referring to Hitler, Mussolini, Reagan, and Limbaugh as right-wing conservatives . . . because they all preached a return to an idealized past and favored or condoned inequality in some form."

Until the professors give examples of political people who do not favor or condone equality in any form , it is fair to conclude that, for all their pretensions to scientific rigor, they are remarkably imprecise. And they are very political people, who would be unlikely ever to begin a sentence: "One is justified in referring to Stalin, Mao, Franklin Roosevelt and the editors of the New York Times as left-wing liberals because . . . . "

The professors acknowledge that "the same motives may underlie different beliefs." And "different motives may underlie the same beliefs." And "motivational and informational influences on belief formation are not incompatible." And no reasoning occurs in a "motivational vacuum." And "virtually all belief systems" are embraced because they "satisfy some psychological needs." And all this "does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false."

Not necessarily. What a relief. But there is no comparable academic industry devoted to studying the psychological underpinnings of liberalism.

Liberals, you see, embrace liberalism for an obvious and uncomplicated reason -- liberalism is self-evidently true. But conservatives embrace conservatism for reasons that must be excavated from their inner turmoils, many of them pitiable or disreputable.

The professors' paper is adorned with this epigraph:

"Conservatism is a demanding mistress and is giving me a migraine."

-- George F. Will

A "mistress" who is "demanding"? Freud, call your office. The epigraph is from "Bunts," a book of baseball essays, from an essay concerning what conservatives should think about the designated hitter.

Will probably thought he was being lighthearted. Silly him. Actually, he was struggling with fear of ambiguity and the need for cognitive closure.

Conservatives, in the crippling grip of motivated social cognition, think they oppose the DH because it makes the game less interesting by reducing managers' strategic choices. But they really oppose that innovation because mental rigidity makes them phobic about change and intolerant of the ambiguous status of the DH. And because Mussolini would have opposed the DH.

georgewill@washpost.com

washingtonpost.com