The G20 Summit, something I would normally ignore, has come to my proverbial backyard and has drawn my attention to the protesters and the ratcheted up police-state that spontaneously sprout up around such glaring symbols of exploitation, injustice, and power. When I first heard of the event coming to town I was inexplicably anxious to be there and find some way to protest. This reaction, springing from anger and frustration with nary an outlet, was inexplicable because I had decided some time ago that protesting is not my thing (after an April 15th protest at a US Post Office) and that I cannot stand to be in a very large crowd – especially when a good portion of the crowd are bend on violence (talking about the LEOs, of course). Returning to my senses, I instead started mental preparations to absorb all of the misinformation about anarchists that would flood the news. As some of this flood is now bearing down upon us, I thought I might try to levy some sense to keep my feet dry.
There are many lessons and talking points to be taken from such a highly visible event: governments’ totally saturated role in economies; industries’ totally saturated role in government; the “Us vs. Them” attitude of law enforcement officers; the complete trampling of rules, rights, and passionate dissenters with zero consequences – maybe a promotion; the nature of propaganda and getting a message out; the superficial complaints of various protest groups about the fruits of injustice represented by the G20 rather than the root of the tree producing it; the media coverage and language used to cover the protests and why this propaganda is more effective than that of the protesters; and finally why should anyone care about any of this. I’m tempted to just stop the post now after that long list of talking points but, grudgingly, I’ll continue to flail my arms recklessly in the dark in hopes of hitting on some sort of point.
The Dark Ages used to refer to the time in European history between the Fall of Rome and the Renaissance. It received this pejorative moniker because of a perception of ceased intellectual and social progress. (As those venerated authors of Wikipedia point out, the term “Dark Ages” is falling out of use due to increased understanding of the times, long delayed by a lack of a written history.) These middle ages are marked by a disintegration of civic institutions previously administered by the Roman Empire; referred to as an actual “societal collapse” by some. Libraries, public baths, institutions of education, and arenas were no longer maintained with the absence of the wealth from the Empire. Though the organization of the civic government declined, the organization of the Christian Church remained – along with its literate clergy – and they filled the void in many areas of civic administration. Many people looked to the Church for leadership, which, like any organization in a position of power, looked to increase that power by striking out at ideas in discord with its own. Economic times grew tough as trade was disrupted. Perhaps this made the Church’s task easier. Perhaps this is why the era was viewed as dark as scientific and philosophic ideas were stifled (and the most prominent history of such times came by the hands of the Church itself).
Economic times are getting tough now. Perhaps another empire is collapsing, and the once philosophic and technical administration is being replaced, in language at least, by one more spiritual; one calling for hope and faith. Similar to the Dark Ages, when the institution of the Church focused on different means to achieve organizational growth and power than the Empire, so the new administration will shift emphasis in order to garner the support (ironically for the same institution that the prior administration sought power for) of those who were about to stray from the institution (like two shepards reigning in their side of the flock back into the fold taking turns using the same staff).
When I started writing this post, way back in February or March, there was still much talk of Hope and Change. Now that this administration has taken the wheel on this similar course, Hope may spring eternal, but Change is now a running joke. Originally I was going to point out how logic and rights and political doctrine would be discarded for the more etherial hope and change and lead into a political dark age in our country. In reality, we have been groping around in the dark for quite some time. If one were to have lived through the entire Dark Ages it would have surely seemed like a long, long time, but it was followed by the Enightenment!
I know how redundant it can be to point out irony in politics. There are entire cable television shows built around exploiting the irony and hypocrisy that flows from the cornicpia of the absurd, Washington D.C. But every now and then a particularly absurd offering trickles from the swamp and I can’t help but point and laugh.
President Obama has been an effective catalyst for absurdity due to his image of freshness and hope in the media multiplied by his proclamations of what people wanted to hear. Sure, he meant to end these pointless wars, and he meant to save the economy and make everybody’s financial worries disappear forever, and he meant to reduce corruption in government, etc., etc.. To the politically cognizant the failure to actually achieve – or even attempt to appear to achieve – these lofty goals is far from ironic. The continued portrayal of change even as the wolf disrobes from his sheepskin robe isn’t even ironic. Irony is not found in the media, but in the details (a telling statement as to the state of the media, IMO).
The glow from Obama’s media-bestowed halo has dimmed a little and his sandals are taking on water after a stint of walking atop the water. To some, especially those who have been successfully disillusioned of the simplified-to-the-point-of-falsehood story of Lincoln found in indoctrination history texts, the endless comparisons of Obama to Lincoln could have foretold the eventual outcome. The best correlation between the two, so far in my book, is the link to slavery. No, I’m not talking of Obama’s blackness; I’m speaking about his push for “voluntary” national service, which would be required of all capable youths. Lincoln was known for his Emancipation Proclamation, fabled to have freed all the nation’s slaves (though, in reality he only freed those in the North), whereas Obama, elected partially because of white guilt over centuries of injustice to the black population – the most obvious being slavery – wishes to enslave (reads as “involuntary servitude” in the framework of this farcical government) the youth of the country. Obama is in no way the first to do this since the passing of the Thirteenth Amendment; every President who instituted the military draft has blazed the trail for him.
Jim Bovard has written an article highlighting the doublespeak of “service” as implemented by politicians. Like most things, it is not indicative of the entirety of volunteers or the effectiveness of all programs inside of AmeriCorps; rather, it is indicative of the taint that comes with all things political, especially the unearned money of government and the useless non-productive leeches attracted to it.
On a related note, here is a video of more irony as it relates to color and slavery (video here):
I remember a time when, in youthful innocence, I would watch, follow, and enjoy professional wrestling. I would actually be upset when someone would tell me, “It’s all fake, you know?” I thought for sure it was real, that the outcomes were completely decided by honest competition. As a discerning adult I now know better, but such entertainment offerings just evolve and don’t go away completely.
Some people, with the realization that the wrestling is scripted, continue to enjoy it and are entertained by it. Some people watch the harlequin equivalent to professional wrestling – soap operas (where the professional wrestlers are put out to stud and grow long, flowing hair?). For some reason, this entertainment habit is looked down upon by certain people. Yet, these same people hold it up as a sign of sophistication if someone follows politics? At least in one case, the folks know they are being entertained!
What are the parodists to do? The more they bend and exaggerate the subject the more absurd the subject becomes. Instead of the parody being on a different track altogether, now it appears parody and reality are racing to the (dreadful) finish. It even gets to the point that people can’t tell the difference between the two. So what are the parodists and satirists to do?
Recently, they’ve taken to having a news program in the Daily Show. When the parody becomes a primary source for news, which isn’t unwarranted as I’ll explain later, is the problem with the consumers of the news, the delivery of the news, or the news itself? The Daily Show is a swipe at the television news programs with its format of roving reporters on the scene and ridiculous exposes. This format is a straight shot at television news and the stories they create. Jon Stewart’s reporting of the current stories and complete ridiculing of the news itself only rakes in the news programs that feast on this tripe as collateral damage. The real target of his jokes are the PR-minded politicos who are used to playing to the willing, eager, and, homely “practice” girls of the mainstream media and appear absolutely ludicrous when looked at objectively*. This uncovering of the ugly face of politics does actually reveal, if not the real news then some closer approximation of it than is typical. Is it any wonder that a generation so blatantly lied to for so long seeks the refreshing near-truth of comedy for their news? I’ve heard it said that comedy is the first place one can hear challenging ideas because it can disarm the usual defenses enough to get the message across. It is in this light that Jon Stewart has the opportunity to ask questions – serious questions – to the likes of Alan Greenspan and LynnCheney.
Other sources of news come via pundits like Bill O’Reilly, so the parodists stepped up their sarcasm and took on the punditry in the persona of Stephen Colbert. In order to parody these shows, Colbert has to be so far over-the-top that he often falls out of character and just laughs at himself on the air, especially during interviews. Even with such hyperbole it appears some people can’t see it and regard him as the new edgy pundit in the game. So when a parodist’s most absurd isn’t absurd enough, what does he turn to? A Presidential campaign.
I see two flaws with Colbert’s approach. The first would be the already-atmospheric level of hyperbole present in this genre. It is a high bar he’s setting for himself; going up against the professionals. The second (minor) flaw I see in his run for office is the mixing of disciplines. Pundits don’t usually run for office; they just talk about everything. And most politicians don’t have talk shows because if allowed to talk that much, their ruse would be up and everyone would know them as a huckster. Perhaps Colbert is taking this cross-over approach to highlight the parody of both sides, which seems to get past some of the more dull observers. I can’t say, but finding out ought to be fun.
*By objective, I don’t mean to imply that The Daily Show is fair and balanced or impartial to certain ideologies. It seems they are a mix of true liberal ideology, attacking power and establishment, and modern “liberal” ideology clamoring for more government programs and market interference. These ideologies tend to shift and sway depending on the subject of the joke.
