Sam Smith
Perusing still more puerile pandering in the cause of pacific politics
by Barack Oblather, a vision suddenly appeared. While, according to
Google, a few others have already experienced this transformational
experience, it is still rare enough to deserve mention.
The apparition was, without doubt, Chauncy Gardiner aka Chance the
gardener, the last manifestation of magnificent nothingness to appear on
the American political scene - albeit the fiction of Chance was safely
contained in the movie "Being There" while Obama is running for election
to a real White House.
Like Obama, no one knew where Chance had come from. Even the CIA and FBI
were unable to discover any information, with each concluding he is a
clever cover-up by one of their own agents.
In the final scene, reports Wikipedia, "Chance is seen apparently
walking across the surface of a lake while the most important movers and
shakers in the USA discuss running him for President. This scene
continues to generate discussion and controversy. Clearly we see Chance
walking on water, an act with a clear biblical reference. . . Is there a
prosaic explanation, such as hidden stepping-stones? Or is Chance the
Savior (as so many of the characters are looking for)? Does he truly
possess some special grace, given his simple innocence and simply being
present to each moment without filters and ideas? In his 2001 book, The
Great Movies, Roger Ebert argues for the latter interpretation. Another
view is that the director (and the author) are simply asking the
audience: "How much more would you have believed? We've been kidding you
all along you know!"
The novel upon which the movie was based was written over thirty years
ago by Jerzy Kosinski. The Obama candidacy may elevate Kosinksi to one
of the most precient political authors of modern times. After all, what
is more Obamesque than the sort of phrase that got Chance started? -
"In the garden, growth has its seasons. First comes spring and summer,
but then we have fall and winter. And then we get spring and summer
again."
Of course, there are differences between Obama and Chance. Obama does
have a modest political record and he is intelligent where Chance was
dense. But the dynamics of his unprecedented rise has painfully
similarities, especially in the willingness of the public and the media
to turn corny platitudes into evidence of a Second Coming.
At a time of economic disjunction, enormous military failure, a national
reputation on the skids and massive political corruption, it is not hard
to see why the unwary should be attracted to a candidate whose name in
Swahili means "one who is blessed."
This illusion is aided by a media that has, to a major degree, given up
covering facts in political campaigns in favor a deconstruction of
images, rhetoric and sensations. One of the results is what candidates
pretend to be becomes infinitely more important than what they actually
are.
Thus the media has all but ignored the long list of scandals in Hillary
Clinton's past in favor of such things as positive coverage of how she
cynically responds to mention of her husband's impeachment.
Obama is playing this same card for all its worth. He knows full well
that the presidency is not about the "audacity of hope" and that, even
if it were, he has no right to control its downloads as though he was
the CEO of the RIAA of optimism.
Obama is engaged in a sophisticated con with a long history in this
country. We normally associated it with evangelicals - the Elmer Gantrys
and the Jerry Falwells - but the scam can be used by liberals as well.
Born-again liberals can turn their backs on reality as well as any
conservative, finding solace in the comforting chicken soup of faith and
hope. The problem, of course, is that reality just keeps truckin' along
and Americans need far more than cliches to get them through the next
few years.
While Obama is clearly being intellectually dishonest, this is, to be
sure, a lesser sin than the congenital variety practiced by his leading
opponent. The little available evidence suggests that Obama would more
likely be a disappointment than a disgrace. Still in the end it's a sad
choice between the venal and the vacuum.
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perusing still more puerile pandering in the cause of pacific politics
by Barack Oblather, a vision suddenly appeared. While, according to
Google, a few others have already experienced this transformational
experience, it is still rare enough to deserve mention.
The apparition was, without doubt, Chauncy Gardiner aka Chance the
gardener, the last manifestation of magnificent nothingness to appear on
the American political scene - albeit the fiction of Chance was safely
contained in the movie "Being There" while Obama is running for election
to a real White House.
Like Obama, no one knew where Chance had come from. Even the CIA and FBI
were unable to discover any information, with each concluding he is a
clever cover-up by one of their own agents.
In the final scene, reports Wikipedia, "Chance is seen apparently
walking across the surface of a lake while the most important movers and
shakers in the USA discuss running him for President. This scene
continues to generate discussion and controversy. Clearly we see Chance
walking on water, an act with a clear biblical reference. . . Is there a
prosaic explanation, such as hidden stepping-stones? Or is Chance the
Savior (as so many of the characters are looking for)? Does he truly
possess some special grace, given his simple innocence and simply being
present to each moment without filters and ideas? In his 2001 book, The
Great Movies, Roger Ebert argues for the latter interpretation. Another
view is that the director (and the author) are simply asking the
audience: "How much more would you have believed? We've been kidding you
all along you know!"
The novel upon which the movie was based was written over thirty years
ago by Jerzy Kosinski. The Obama candidacy may elevate Kosinksi to one
of the most precient political authors of modern times. After all, what
is more Obamesque than the sort of phrase that got Chance started? -
"In the garden, growth has its seasons. First comes spring and summer,
but then we have fall and winter. And then we get spring and summer
again."
Of course, there are differences between Obama and Chance. Obama does
have a modest political record and he is intelligent where Chance was
dense. But the dynamics of his unprecedented rise has painfully
similarities, especially in the willingness of the public and the media
to turn corny platitudes into evidence of a Second Coming.
At a time of economic disjunction, enormous military failure, a national
reputation on the skids and massive political corruption, it is not hard
to see why the unwary should be attracted to a candidate whose name in
Swahili means "one who is blessed."
This illusion is aided by a media that has, to a major degree, given up
covering facts in political campaigns in favor a deconstruction of
images, rhetoric and sensations. One of the results is what candidates
pretend to be becomes infinitely more important than what they actually
are.
Thus the media has all but ignored the long list of scandals in Hillary
Clinton's past in favor of such things as positive coverage of how she
cynically responds to mention of her husband's impeachment.
Obama is playing this same card for all its worth. He knows full well
that the presidency is not about the "audacity of hope" and that, even
if it were, he has no right to control its downloads as though he was
the CEO of the RIAA of optimism.
Obama is engaged in a sophisticated con with a long history in this
country. We normally associated it with evangelicals - the Elmer Gantrys
and the Jerry Falwells - but the scam can be used by liberals as well.
Born-again liberals can turn their backs on reality as well as any
conservative, finding solace in the comforting chicken soup of faith and
hope. The problem, of course, is that reality just keeps truckin' along
and Americans need far more than cliches to get them through the next
few years.
While Obama is clearly being intellectually dishonest, this is, to be
sure, a lesser sin than the congenital variety practiced by his leading
opponent. The little available evidence suggests that Obama would more
likely be a disappointment than a disgrace. Still in the end it's a sad
choice between the venal and the vacuum.
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment