Finding the right Tune
by J. R. Nyquist
Weekly Column Published: 07.10.2009
PrintTo write a popular song is a trick, perhaps even an accident; for who really knows what will tickle the public? Why is one song a hit while another goes unnoticed? What makes for popularity? Is it truth, beauty or perfection? If so, then classical music would not be losing support with secular society, inch by inch. “Praise bands” would not be taking hold in one church after another. One might ask: Why did Elvis sell over one billion records? Why did the county courthouse and city hall fly the flag at half-mast on the occasion of Michael Jackson’s funeral? The answer lies in the nature of the masses themselves – and the type of media that absorb their everyday attention.
To be sure, I am not interested in popular songs. I refer to them as a metaphor for today’s political process. As we saw last year, success in politics can be achieved when a politician becomes the equivalent of the pop star. President Obama’s speeches are without classical substance – yet his popularity cannot be denied. Whatever your political persuasion, it must be admitted that America’s new leader titillates as he entices. What is the basis of this popularity? There are two primary factors at work: (1) Obama is attractive and well-suited to television; (2) the spread of certain ideas and cultural tendencies paved his way to power.
The first point reminds me of a passage from Neil Postman’s book, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. Because images are primary and words are secondary on television, the medium itself turns everything into entertainment. As television has become the chief medium of politics, it is only natural that the central figure of televised politics should be likened to a pop star. Consider, noted Postman, “how you would proceed if you were given the opportunity to produce a television news show for any station concerned to attract the largest possible audience. You would, first, choose a cast of players, each of whom has a face that is both ‘likable’ and ‘credible.’”
According to Postman, some faces “are not suitable” for television. “This means that you will exclude women who are not beautiful or who are over the age of fifty, men who are bald, all people who are overweight or whose noses are too long or whose eyes are too close together.” As Postman goes on to explain, “It is frightening to think that this may be so, that the perception of the truth of a report rests heavily on the acceptability of the newscaster.” In point of fact, television, as the central medium of our time, eliminates serious consideration of issues and replaces this consideration with a popularity contest in which the attractiveness of a person – of a personality – becomes the alpha and the omega.
There is something more, as well, that relates to the second factor at work: the spread of certain ideas and cultural tendencies. Modern society has become, over time, increasingly permissive and lax. We have adopted ideas and behaviors that our grandparents would have shuddered at. And our grandparents were not stupid; for they survived the Great Depression and won the Second World War. They understood – for as long as they ruled – how to avoid another depression and yet another world war. The same cannot be said for today’s ruling generation, which itself is ruled by television (and by the permissive notions that have everywhere crept into popular thinking).
As a simple exercise, compare today’s pop star politician to a statesman. Is he more powerful, more effective than the old-style politician, or is he less effective? This week President Obama was in Moscow, and he impressed the average Russian – though the Russian government found him tedious. As one diplomat observed privately, Russia gave nothing away at the arms reduction talks, but the Americans mistakenly think otherwise. Of course, Obama wanted to finally put aside the last vestiges of the Cold War. This is hardly original. In fact, Kremlin leaders are slightly annoyed; for they are building yet another generation of nuclear weapons as an ongoing project, while the Americans let their weapons fall into disrepair. Real nuclear disarmament is out of the question. For them America is the “main enemy,” and war is being prepared. But Russia’s leaders are beginning to wonder if the Americans are a proper enemy at all.
How many American presidents have come and gone, each arriving in Moscow to put aside the last vestiges of the Cold War? The first go-round was charming. The humorless and earnest continuance of the process is like a bad tune that keeps cycling through your head. The joke in Moscow is that Putin prefers George W. Bush. The KGB looks back with nostalgia on the visits of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. “Can we get Thatcher?” Putin asked a Russian diplomat the other day. According to Thatcher’s daughter Carol, the former British prime minister has difficulty finishing sentences, doesn’t know her own address, and recently forgot that her husband Denis had passed away. But yes! Let us have Thatcher! At least she was a serious person!
President Obama wants all nuclear weapons to be eliminated in every country. The Russians cannot believe their ears. Is he stupid? Does he understand what he is saying? American military power sits on a nuclear foundation, and the U.S. president wants to remove the foundation? This catches the Kremlin short. Perhaps it’s a trick. Perhaps the Americans have a new super-weapon. On the other hand, look at how the U.S. economy is failing. Is Moscow preparing for war against the wrong country? Are the Americans worthwhile enemies at all? Whatever happened to presidents like John F. Kennedy, who championed a stronger nuclear arsenal?
The late James Burnham was not a pop star, and his take on nuclear disarmament deserves to be quoted. “The past century has been studded with proposals for partial or total disarmament. These are a derivative, in one root, of spreading pacifist sentiment. The idea of doing away with lethal weapons is, one might say, the lazy mind’s road to peace.”
Which is why this particular tune qualifies as a “hit.”
Copyright © 2009 Jeffrey R. Nyquist
Global Analysis Archive
contact information
