Tweet
Fruitcake – Pinky Salazar
Why do the Democrats seem to cave on every issue ? Why do the Republicans appear to be loonies ? Why does the president seem to refuse to use his office to push a more reasonable agenda ? Why does our society seem to be coming apart at the seams ? Questions that abound these days.
Lets rewind the clock 50 or 60 years or so. When media technology was big, bulky, vacuum tubed and very expensive. When there were only three major networks and about a dozen major newspapers. Video was filmed and audio recorded on large bulky equipment. Except for Japanese radios, not much was portable. And the political party apparatus called all the shots.
No satellites, so on the spot reporting of any kind was limited to those events that were nearly of biblical proportions.
Politics was very tightly controlled. One could not run for dog catcher, let alone a senate or congressional seat with out the backing and approval of the party. Which ever one you were part of. And any information about candidates was only what the party wanted people to know.
Doesn’t sound very democratic, does it? But remember this same apparatus gave us Harry Truman and LBJ and JFK and Dwight Eisenhower and FDR and Hoover. Not to mention Mike Mansfield and Everett Dirkson and San Rayburn and William Fulbright and Frank Church and many, many others. Statesmen and public servants. And the media only broadcast what the parties and the news departments thought appropriate and important. After all the news departments were the the biggest departments and the most expensive parts the networks.
It’s no real coincidence that as the technology improved and the ability of giving on the spot reports of what ever was going on – that the political scene also began to change as well. When reporters could come up to a representative or councilman and get their response to what ever happened as well as any other person involved, this control began to diminish. The party apparatus began to give way since it became increasingly more difficult to keep people – what they said and what they did – under control.
Now fast forward to the present. With satellite cable, smart cell phones, internet and video and audio capture and transmission nobody can remain completely anonymous anymore. The man on the street no longer needs a reporter to interview him, he can interview himself. Public figures are so public now that everyone can know anything they want about them.
We – us right here reading this and other diaries and blogs – have become both the story and the audience at the same time.
So if Wall Street resembles a Las Vegas casino where everyone has had far too much to drink. And the republican primary resembles people drafted from an insane asylum. Or the democrats look like they are afraid of their own shadows or the president acts powerless to do anything. This has a lot to do with it.
There really is nobody that is in charge. The political apparatus that we use to have – no longer has much, if any, say anymore because it no longer controls the message and therefore the people within.
This is not to blame technology or the media. That would be like blaming a sidewalk for the ice. Like they say in the hood, it is what it is.
Our problem therefor as I see it is our lack of maturity and self control as a culture to effectively and responsibly make use of what we now have. If it looks like a complete free for all politically and economically and socially, it’s because it is. The controls have not been taken away, they simply have evaporated because they became moot.
How does one control an economy that can be manipulated electronically from anywhere in the world ?
How can you control a politician that can record anything or have anything recorded that they wish or anyone else wishes and have it put on display for the whole world to see ?
Our culture is becoming or has become increasingly dysfunctional because for everyone yelling stop, there is someone yelling go just as loudly and vise-a-verse-a. Like a playground of children after school lets out with no supervision. To each small group the group makes sense but taken as a whole, looks chaotic. We may learn how use it appropriately at some point.
13 Comments
I really don’t want to go back to what some call “the good old days” but I think there was a lot to be said for candidates being chosen in “smoke-filled rooms.” They got it right more times than they got it wrong and this mess we have today is destroying us.
Whether or not you or I or anyone would want to is kind of moot at this point, I think. To create a metaphorical fruit salt, the cat is out of the bag, the genie out of the bottle and Pandora’s box ripped the shreds. IE we couldn’t if we wanted to since it would be nearly impossible to keep the door closed on those rooms anymore.
But I do agree that even with all the graft and corruption (like we don’t have any now ?) they did do a pretty good job.
The amount involved in graft back then was small compared to now. Like the difference between a pickpocket and a bank robber.
I believe what I am trying to get across is that we have given ourselves the world of tomorrow but too many of us still live in the world of yesterday. IE Chevrolet mentalities in a space ship world.
It will take time to catch up in that manner. I hope we give our selves the time.
A lot of what candidates used to do was less controlled, not more controlled. Some of what’s different is that they campaigned in the present and their pasts were allowed to fade like normal memories. Now everyone’s life is subject to opposition research and all figures, public and even not so public, are perpetually in the present. Much of the result has been that people do not easily admit mistakes, that they are afraid to take positions, and that they are easily manipulated into meaningless campaign platforms that are just sales pitches.
That’s the difference. Candidates took firm stances, because to get to where they were going, ideologically, they were allowed to make mistakes, strike deals, and change their minds when necessary. Like mature human beings. In the constantly on camera world, none of that is possible, every moment is on record and can be played back and used to accuse you of the ultimate sin — changing your mind — and so no such strong stances and longterm ideological goals and promises are possible. Holding people “accountable” has become its own worst enemy because it hasn’t been limited to what Martin Luther King Jr. used to call “the content of one’s character” but instead to the nitpick of one’s phrases. Once there is no character there, of course, all politicians might as well be available for hire.
Yes, I see what you are saying here. I think though what I meant was the what the public heard, that is the message was more controlled.
Which is what I think you were eluding to in the second paragraph.
From the diary above. . . .
Q: How can you control a politician?
A: $$$$
Also from the diary above. . . .
I’d say that our culture has become increasingly dysfunctional because a small minority (the 1%) has the power to make their voice heard and dictate the issues based on their own greed, rather than the common good.
Political campaigns have become more and more about BIG MONEY rather than being about the voters.
I meant that it was less controlled, and it was. I am saying that the influence of more communications has been less willingness to take strong stances. I’m saying you are not correct.
Correction. The election process was a lot more controlled. The Party Bosses determined who would run for what office. If they did not like you, you did not have a prayer.
JFK came close to not being able to run. Truman himself had a very intense conversation with him to convince JFK not to run.
And once in office when the dealing was done, you rarely heard about it until after the fact. And even then only what everyone there agreed to let out message wise.
Many small minorities actually. But why do you think they are so successful now ? That the people in Washington have now become less ethical ? Or that the reasons for ACTING in an ethical manner have been greatly diminished ?
Politicians in the past wanted the respect of the people. Now they say “who needs respect? Show me the money.” They quite literally have bargained away their souls.
Don’t try to “correct” me. What I said in my rebuttal was one hundred percent correct and does not need correction. If you’re not capable of understanding it, then so be it.
It isn’t a matter of party bosses, or networks. It’s a matter of what one is free to say. And a whole lot of freedoms have actually been lost, not gained, by processes that appear to be opening up communications. That was what I was saying. If you can’t fathom that, then fine. But don’t presume to correct it because it isn’t wrong in the first place.