-Caveat Lector- http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a341b9f6f53.htm December 10, 2000 THE UNVEILING Behind the Political Curtain By NEAL GABLER THINGS used to be simpler in America. You could go to a movie and marvel at the special effects without knowing exactly how they were achieved. You could read about your favorite celebrities without wallowing in the lurid details of their personal lives. You could hear of a political accomplishment without knowing the machinations behind it or the depredations of the officials who effected it. In a sense, we lived in blissful ignorance. Sometime after World War II, all that began to change. In an era of postwar disillusionment, the ignorance and innocence gradually gave way to hard-boiled skepticism. Over the last 50 years, journalists began peeling back the layers and fully revealing the people and institutions in which Americans placed their faith. What they found underneath wasn't pretty — namely, that so much of what we cherished was a sham. Now, after the legal wrangling last week in Florida, this long process of demystification may have reached a kind of climax with the shattering of one of our last illusions — that our vote, the source of democratic power, is pure. This is no small matter. But it may have led to something more important. By demystifying the vote, Americans have effected a transfer of power from the traditional political realm, where the franchise is what mattered, to the more amorphous cultural realm, where what mattered most was seeing things without illusions, even the illusion that the electoral process was sacred. Before this final epiphany, Americans had discovered that they had been the victims of a series of deceptions, which is what the historian Daniel Boorstin was getting at back in 1961 when he coined the term " pseudo-event" in his path-breaking book "The Image." Pseudo-events were manipulations by public relations operatives to gain public attention. They looked genuine, but were confected, and, as Mr. Boorstin observed, quickly began to "flood our consciousness." Movie premieres, award ceremonies, press conferences — all were pseudo-events operating in the guise of reality, and we had been the dupes. Though this sort of deception was omnipresent in America, politics was one of its main arenas. What we saw during a campaign was a candidate addressing the faithful on the stump or engaged in debate or answering voters' questions to show who he was and what he thought. What we didn't see was that the faithful had been bused in and prepped to cheer, the debate answers scripted and the voters' questions screened. In fact, as late as 1968, it came as a shock when Joe McGinniss revealed in "The Selling of the President" that Richard M. Nixon's presidential campaign had been stage- managed by media advisers not to show who Nixon was but to conceal who he was. STILL, the demystification of politics may have been harder for Americans to accept than the demystification of Hollywood or athletics. It wasn't that they were deluded enough to believe the system was pristine. They knew about the old Pendergast machine in Kansas City and Tammany Hall in New York. They knew, too, about Teapot Dome, where corruption invaded the inner sanctums of the White House and the Capitol. But these were regarded as abuses of the system, not endemic to it. Americans clung to the belief that the system was sound and democracy inviolate. They even believed their leaders were generally decent and honorable men, statesmen rather than hacks, which is why the president nearly always topped the list of the most respected people in the nation. But in an atmosphere of demystification, even this belief could withstand only so many blows before it began to crumble. The whacks came swiftly and often: the scandals of the Truman administration; Eisenhower aide Sherman Adams receiving gifts, including a vicuna coat, from a lobbyist; the swindles of Lyndon B. Johnson's crony, Billy Sol Estes; allegations of banking violations against Jimmy Carter's budget head Bert Lance; the Abscam scandals in which congressmen were trapped in an F.B.I. sting; the conviction of Dan Rostenkowski, powerful head of the House Ways and Means Committee, for misusing federal funds and padding his payroll, to name only a few on a long, long list. And graft was the least of it. One could always understand the temptations of lucre. It was more difficult to excuse the weakness of the flesh, in part because it had always been carefully hidden from public scrutiny through a sort of gentleman's agreement between the press and the politicians. When it was finally revealed, it arrived not as high tragedy but as low comedy. Wilbur Mills, a predecessor of Mr. Rostenkowski as Ways and Means chairman, was found to have had a drunken frolic with an Argentine stripper named Fanne Foxe; Representative Wayne Hays, chairman of the House Administration Committee, was found to have had an affair with a staff member named Elizabeth Ray, who admitted her secretarial skills did not include typing, filing or even answering the phone; and the Democratic presidential aspirant Senator Gary Hart was found to have had a dalliance with a pretty young woman on a yacht aptly named Monkey Business. Once the wall of silence fell, demystification proceeded apace. We learned of Franklin D. Roosevelt's relationship with Lucy Mercer, Dwight D. Eisenhower's alleged relationship with a military aide, Kate Sommersby, and John F. Kennedy's with several coquettes including, if rumors were believed, Marilyn Monroe. By the time Bill Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky was revealed, it wasn't a break with the past. It was a confirmation. One effect of these revelations, and one reason they were so devoured by the public, was that in lifting the scales from our eyes they served to empower us. No longer were we credulous. In a kind of national "Blue Velvet," Americans not only saw the ugly realities beneath the bright veneer of politics, just as they had come to see the realities under the shiny veneers of almost everything else in American life, they felt a superiority over them because they were finally in on the game. This wising up was not necessarily a bad thing. They were seeing things more cynically, perhaps, but also more realistically. THAT sense of empowerment may explain the seeming obsession in America today with pulling back the curtain and revealing the wizard there. Magazines like People and Vanity Fair, gossip columns, cable television shows and, above all, the Internet, are all largely dedicated to taking the public behind the scenes. Politics, again, has been a major target of the deconstruction. Indeed, one could make the case that political coverage was now primarily concerned with stagecraft and back-room deal making, presumably because that is what the audience wanted to know. As a result, from a situation in which there had been the manipulators and the gulled, the media had now made everyone an insider. But revelation had another effect. It not only demystified; it also delegitimized. It was difficult to unmask the depravities of the leaders of a system without undermining the legitimacy of the system itself. How could one feel respect for the congressional leadership when one now knew so many were grafters or hypocrites? How could one feel the same way about the dignity of the office of the presidency knowing what Bill Clinton had done in that office with Monica Lewinsky? Idealism falls hard, but it does fall. Still, there had always remained one beacon of hope and belief: the election process itself. Whatever our political leaders did, however much our political institutions may have been compromised, the ultimate authority rested with the people through the exercise of the vote. The vote was holy. When one entered the voting booth with a pencil (or, as we now know, a stylus), pulled the curtain and cast a ballot, one was entering the real cathedral of democracy. Here it was simple again. You made your choice. Your choice was registered. The candidate with the most votes took office. The Republic endured. Then came Florida. Whatever else the electoral fracas there has done, it has helped demystify this last redoubt of American political idealism by demonstrating that not even voting was as sacrosanct as we believed just a few weeks ago. It wasn't just that we learned about undervotes and overvotes, which essentially meant your vote wasn't registered at all, or about hanging chads, pregnant chads, dimpled chads and chads à la mode. It was that despite the Democrats' declarations that they were making their challenges to uphold the sanctity of the vote and the Republicans' declarations that they were opposing recounts to uphold the sanctity of election law, the entire voting process was exposed as being hostage to partisans who cared little for anything but winning. If Florida's secretary of state had been a Democrat, Vice President Al Gore would now be president-elect. On the other hand, if the canvassing boards of Palm Beach and Broward counties were Republican, Gov. George W. Bush would probably have been certified president- elect without a recount. It all depended on which partisans had the advantage. Knowing all this has demystified the vote, and the effect has been the same as in other demystifications — a new sense of power over those who had deceived the public. When you hear people say the Florida vote is all "just politics" or that they are tired of it and just want it to stop, what they mean is that they have finally seen the process for what it is and are no longer in thrall to it. They feel, in effect, that they are better than it is. The power of demystification is that it serves as the great equalizer. Demystification of the vote, then, sapped legitimacy from the political process and put it into being in the know — another kind of empowerment, the kind that said we were too smart to get fooled again. In this way the electoral process itself has been both demystified as just another hoax and delegitimized, so that whoever becomes president cannot possibly be a symbol of our idealism. Rather, he will be the one whose party managed to work the system better. That is where 50 years of revelation and cynicism has brought us — to the point where the presidential election has become the biggest pseudo-event of all and power resides not in the electoral system but in those who feel they have the perspicacity to see through it. -- Arms are the only true badges of liberty. The possession of arms is the distinction of a free man from a slave. ~~ Andrew Fletcher 1698 <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
