Il Douché and His Discontents: The 2016 Primary Voting Thread, Part 4

Lately I've been reading a book about Reagan, and the author mentions an Arthur Miller speech from 2001 called "Politics and the Art of Acting". I thought it sheds some interesting light on the appeal of Trump. I guess Trump's background is technically not in acting, though I'm not sure you can draw a line between that and being a reality TV star. Miller notes that one of Reagan's strengths was his ability to not only act but act "sincerely" as evidenced by his frequent blurring of the line between reality and fiction. Like Reagan, I think Trump honestly sees himself as some kind of heroic figure. I could quote the whole thing, but here are a few parts that resonated:

No differently than with actors, the single most important characteristic a politician needs to display is relaxed sincerity. Ronald Reagan disarmed his opponents by never showing the slightest sign of inner conflict about the truth of what he was saying. Simple-minded though his critics found his ideas and remarks, cynical and manipulative as he may have been in actuality, he seemed to believe every word he said; he could tell you that atmospheric pollution came from trees or that ketchup was a vegetable in school lunches, or leave the implication that he had seen action in World War II rather than in a movie he had made or perhaps only seen, and if you didn't believe these things you were still kind of amused by how sincerely he said them... Reagan's tendency to confuse events in films with things that really happened is often seen as intellectual weakness but in reality it was -- unknowingly of course -- a Stanislavskian triumph, the very consummation of the actor's ability to incorporate reality into the fantasy of his role; in Reagan the dividing line between acting and actuality was simply melted, gone. Human beings, as the poet said, cannot bear very much reality, and the art of politics is our best proof...

The mystery of the star performer can only leave the inquiring mind confused, resentful, or blank, something that of course has the greatest political importance. Many Republicans have blamed the press for the attention Bill Clinton continued to get even out of office. Again, what they don't understand is that what a star says and even what he does is only incidental to people's interest in him. When the click of empathic association is made with a leader logic has very little to do with it and virtue even less, at least up to a certain distant point. Obviously, this is not very encouraging news for rational people trying to uplift society by reasoned argument. But then not many of us rational folk are immune to the star's power to rule.

The Presidency in acting terms is a heroic role. It is not one for comedians, sleek lover-types, or second bananas. In a word, to be credible the man who acts as President must hold in himself an element of potential dangerousness. Something similar is required in a real star...

What Clinton projects is his personal interest in the customer, which comes across as a sort of love. There can be no doubt that like all great performers he loves to act, he is most alive when he's on; his love of acting may be his most authentic emotion, the realest thing about him, and as with Reagan there is no dividing line between his performance and himself -- he is his performance...

Clinton, to me, is our Eulenspiegel, the mythical arch prankster of 13th Century Germany, who was a sort of mischievous and loveable folk spirit, half child- half man. Eulenspiegel challenged society with his enviable guile and a charm so irresistible that he could blurt out embarrassing truths about the powerful now and then, earning the gratitude of the ordinary man... Appropriately enough, the word Eulenspiegel is a sort of German joke; it means a mirror put before an owl, and since an owl is blind in daylight it cannot see its own reflection. So that as bright and happy and hilariously unpredictable as he is, Eulenspiegel cannot see himself and so among other things he is dangerous. In other words, a star. Indeed, the most perfect model of both star and political leader is that smiling and implicitly dangerous man who likes you.

http://www.neh.gov/about/awards/jefferson-lecture/arthur-miller-lecture

I can't imagine anyone outside Miami Dade County's dying and rebarbative Cuban American bloc, who wouldn't vote for a Dem anyway, caring about Castro and Sandinistas.

The mystery of the star performer can only leave the inquiring mind confused, resentful, or blank

what's funny about reagan is how consistent the reaction was to him, all through his life: even in high school, some people think he's the nicest, kindest, most heroic person; and others are reduced to paroxysms of frustration by the mention of his name, the kind of despair that comes from years of going "but... but... but what..." to crowds that don't care

Appropriately enough, the word Eulenspiegel is a sort of German joke; it means a mirror put before an owl, and since an owl is blind in daylight it cannot see its own reflection. So that as bright and happy and hilariously unpredictable as he is, Eulenspiegel cannot see himself and so among other things he is dangerous.

i love this!

i'm inclined to believe Conventional Wisdom that pro-castro remarks are a bad sell in america, but i'm also inclined to look w great skepticism on Conventional Wisdom the year the gop nominates a mussolini-tweeting spode

it's not just the pro-castro stuff. it's the vulgar early alternative media stuff too. he's got a lot of material that is probably exploitable to demonstrate how outside the mainstream he is. hopefully it won't matter this cycle but it's def a risk.

Again, what they don't understand is that what a star says and even what he does is only incidental to people's interest in him.

There's this moment at 0;45 when Reagan realizes the crowd's applauding Mondale's zing and his face twists in a brief snarl: it's the resentment of an actor who thinks he's lost the love of the audience.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It0Dtm1gFFQ

mondale pre-clinches it by smiling gamely at "there you go again", even tho it is most likely a smile at the unforced, unknown error

@ggreenwald 1h
NPR warns its employees they're *not allowed* to condemn Trump; NPR host chides Cokie Roberts for doing so

The Rise of Trump Shows the Danger and Sham of Compelled Journalistic “Neutrality”

https://theintercept.com/2016/03/14/the-rise-of-trump-shows-the-danger-and-sham-of-compelled-journalistic-neutrality/

did we ever talk about that recording of him sitting around between segments w joe and mika?

it's not just the pro-castro stuff. it's the vulgar early alternative media stuff too. he's got a lot of material that is probably exploitable to demonstrate how outside the mainstream he is. hopefully it won't matter this cycle but it's def a risk.

Sure. You're right. But the GOP frontrunner is a reality show host who's going to force Mexico to pay for a wall it doesn't want.

@ggreenwald 1h
NPR warns its employees they're *not allowed* to condemn Trump; NPR host chides Cokie Roberts for doing so

I'm off today, so I had a rare chance to check out how execrable the Diane Rehm show is and she came through! She and the Daily Caller guy and Kathleen Parker agreed Sanders and Trump are "exploiting" the "same phenomenon" of discontent.

greenwald bizarrely does not mention that NPR is a publicly/government funded media outlet and probably has obligations to remain neutral on certain electoral topics

Sure. You're right. But the GOP frontrunner is a reality show host who's going to force Mexico to pay for a wall it doesn't want.

but that's part of his appeal - his outrageousness. it's already built into his base of support.

I think you're underestimating how Jewish self-proclaimed socialist from Vermont is part of his appeal and base of support!

that bizarrely sounds like the hounding of Bill Moyers off PBS. xxp

NPR's idea of neutrality is both-sides-do-it.

If he were to secure the nomination and run against Trump, it would definitely be used against him. But it's an old tactic - Republicans try to smear every liberal candidate as being "dangerously to the left", so any independents who are tired of that schtick from campaign to campaign are likely to just roll their eyes.

It'll deflect some support for sure - if the nonsense that was Swift Boat Veterans took down the Kerry campaign, some truthful cringeworthy statements he made years ago can hurt too...but I also think he would run a smarter campaign than that. Likewise, even though "socialism" will be bandied about as the typical boogeyman word (and for once will have some substance to it), Trump is unpopular enough that him just being Trump should cancel that bounce out.

Trump will likely never go below a certain 'floor' of support with his constituency, but he's not even really that popular amongst his own party. 65-70% of primary voters are still voting "Not Trump" - he's just benefitting from the multi-headed dragon of shit candidates.

But even beyond the "favorability/unfavorability" numbers, there are multiple signs that Trump's reception is not going to map to the general populace. Many polls (some scientific, most non-scientific) are indicating growing discomfort with the idea of a Trump Presidency, and that's just now, when he has been able to deflect a lot of damage due to the ineptitude of most of his competition's campaigns. A one on one battle will be harder for him to win.

Nothing's a certainty but I do think Sanders carries a greater performance against Trump simply because he doesn't carry the weight of "Clinton fatigue", the (unfair) baggage of Benghazi, emailgate, etc. Undecided voters often vote based on character as opposed to platform since they often don't side with one party and Bernie's likable, like a grandpa playing catch with his nephew. Trump's the arrogant, awkward uncle that gets invited to family functions because "he's family" and usually gets thrown out before the night is over.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxpost

i did not hear a WORD against Scalia on NPR "news" the day after his death. xxp

the *real* liberal media is grossly inept because it's either trying to earn brownie points with people that those people that might be registered Democrat, but consider themselves 'moderates' and split down the middle on issues.

say what you want about the right, but one thing they've never had a problem with is saying 'fuck it' and broadcasting their shitty platforms without watering them down. our liberal talking heads will partake in the mudslinging, but they always court that audience of idiots who believe "the truth lies somewhere in the middle".

most of my Democrat friends are probably actually right of center if you were to boil down where they fell on issues.

would a prize be commensurate with the billions in profits earned from patents and monopolies? Serious question.
― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn)

the reform to patent laws would also presumably leave existing patents grandfathered so the plan to drag down costs of treatment (for the immediate term at least) relies on the government's ability to negotiate corporate pharma to reduce the cost to the consumer. or am i way off base?

say what you want about the right, but one thing they've never had a problem with is saying 'fuck it' and broadcasting their shitty platforms without watering them down.

you know their big reactionaries say the same exact thing

NPR is just corporate media w a "liberal" sheen

http://images.publicradio.org/content/2012/10/24/20121024_cokie-roberts_33.jpg

NPR is just corporate media w a "liberal" sheen

wtf does that mean

dick_nixon goes long

"Trump and Sanders understand that winning is making others believe in the devil."

Hillary Clinton "plays a grandmother—at best, a school principal—when America wants a hangman... Tone-deaf, crippled, insensitive, overmatched, and politically stupid. And that's this week."

http://mashable.com/2016/03/13/dick-nixon-angry-america/#xiS6fLpXbPq1

http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2015/12/17/PieChart_01_2015-01_custom-3ec10bd89b469c991bb411857757654d6a14a077-s800-c85.jpg

what the left really needs is a Cyrano de Bergerac type campaign where some badass left-leaning comedian runs and is fed his political dialogue off-stage from like a Bernie Sanders type fellow, while he can fling zingers at the other candidate during lapses in dialogue.

so what it means is that it gets 19% of its funding from corporations as opposed to 34% from individuals? xp

dick_nixon goes long

per this BBC article from 2014

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28212223

On average, only three in 10 drugs launched are profitable, with one of those going on to be a blockbuster with $1bn-plus revenues a year. Many more do not even make it to market.

what the left really needs is a Cyrano de Bergerac type campaign where some badass left-leaning comedian runs and is fed his political dialogue off-stage from like a Bernie Sanders type fellow, while he can fling zingers at the other candidate during lapses in dialogue reagan

lol. good point

perhaps what the left needs is Dick Gregory

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/13/436334/-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UofbZVTIYMU

remarks on george wallace pretty familiar!

"Once I accept injustice, I become injustice. For example, paper mills give off a terrible stench. But the people who work there, don't smell it. Remember, Dr. King was assassinated when he went to work for garbage collectors. To help them as workers to enforce their rights. They couldn't smell the stench of the garbage all around them anymore. They were used to it. They would eat their lunch out of a brown bag sitting on the garbage truck. One day, a worker was sitting inside the back of the truck on top of the garbage, and got crushed to death because no one knew he was there."

damn - and that was from 3 years ago!

so what it means is that it gets 19% of its funding from corporations as opposed to 34% from individuals? xp

that is 53% from private sources. it means they tote the standard pro-corporate and pro-state power line. look to how in 2009 they banned the use of the word "torture". during the health care debates i recall zero stories taking a serious look at a public option. NPR is useful to the right as a boogieman and that's why people think they are leftist but in truth they are FOX News for the yoga crowd.

so drug patents expire 20 yrs after filing and i saw some sources say it can take 8-10 years for drugs to get fda approval so that leaves 10-12 years of $1bn+ revenues before much of the drug value is eroded by generics. I

speaking in terms of present value of future payments a successful drug looks like $7.5-9bn (assuming 5% interest and $0 revenue beyond the patent period) vs $3bn for the prize. obviously lots of stuff is at play there - is having that $3bn immediately more valuable for reinvestment purposes? is the company trying to sell that 10-12 yr stable cash flow to a hedge fund?

i guess the sanders plan could work in theory but im not sure without some non-voluntary component it flies w business

that is 53% from private sources. it means they tote the standard pro-corporate and pro-state power line. look to how in 2009 they banned the use of the word "torture". during the health care debates i recall zero stories taking a serious look at a public option. NPR is useful to the right as a boogieman and that's why people think they are leftist but in truth they are FOX News for the yoga crowd.

this is so dumb but i don't know what i expect

it means they tote the standard pro-corporate and pro-state power line. look to how in 2009 they banned the use of the word "torture". during the health care debates i recall zero stories taking a serious look at a public option. NPR is useful to the right as a boogieman and that's why people think they are leftist but in truth they are FOX News for the yoga crowd.

lol this formulation makes no sense

also - are the kind of labs that produce pharmaceuticals capable of being repulsed for a more profitable endeavor should the patent system be reformed to remove incentives for producing big dollar drugs as in the cutter the environment?

I am not a fan or regular listener of NPR but to say they advance the same ideology as FOX News is bizarre, unless you meant that they are the lefty equivalent of FOX news, but that doesn't make any sense either because that would imply that NPR actually does have a lefty agenda (analogous to FOX's righty agenda)

xp

Adam, do you think tonally and editorially NPR and FOX are similar? Do you think Sanders and Trump are similar too?

adam i don't remember where you live but my local NPR affiliate is always covering public interest stories - tons of original reporting about PA education, politics, environmental concerns. there have been huge attention paid to things like fracking and under-funded philly schools over the last few years. they are 100% a public service organization and if they sometimes do things you do not approve of (like not explicitly calling Trump an evil fascist on the air, or using a euphemism for torture when discussing water boarding) i imagine it has much more to do w/ their being a public institution and less to do w/ citibank demanding that they pledge fealty to the donald.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2M_b4w3jb-E

(By the way, that chart slightly misleads by placing the "federal government" in a different bucket from "CPB and public broadcasting entities." It's not a problem from my POV, but the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is us - technically a nonprofit, but taxpayer-funded by congressional mandate.)

In the distant past (late 80s maybe), I regarded myself as a Serious Print Journalist. Even then, I don't think anybody truly believed in objectivity or neutrality; one was expected to try for at least the appearance of decorously attempted fairness.

These days I wouldn't have the slightest idea how to be neutral, or even how to seem neutral. But I know it doesn't mean that 50% of your articles make Democrats look bad and 50% of your articles make Republicans look bad. First of all, that's just stupid. Second of all, no one on earth will ever notice this false type of "balance," let alone praise you for it.

One can always fall back on quote-based reporting: Person X Said Thing Y. And fortunately, these days no one shuts up, ever, about anything. So matter what viewpoint you want to report as being out there, you can pretty much always find someone who has said it, no matter how unhinged. The resulting stories cannot be faulted, because the people really did say the things.

NPR will often bring two dissenting POVs which could basically be broken down to the right-wing position v. the left-wing position but I think that's a public service. As long as the neutrality means exposing listeners to a variety of opinions, I don't see the problem. Personally I appreciate hearing intelligent ppl with whom I disagree state their case (and get pushback from the interviewer or other guest).

There are plenty of people here who see Hillary Clinton as a right-wing politician, and if I saw Hillary Clinton as right-wing, surely I would see NPR as right-wing, too. (I don't.)

And remember, there are only two points of view on ANY topic. That's the American Way (TM)!

(also the MacNeil / Lehrer NewsHour way inherited by most "public" media)