The process of normalization of the abhorrent and reprehensible can be rapid and slippery, like a slick of K-Y moistening a Teflon pan, or it can be slow and incremental, like rehabbing a hip replacement. But either way, one gets to a point where tolerance and acceptance of invalid and unreliable products and policies stands inviolate and tall, unmolested by even the densest mists of logic and evidence. However, it's rare to find the aforementioned circumstances driven by dichotomies of clear distinction and clarity; rather, it's an uncomfortable blending of external forces and internal motivations -- both current and historical -- that move people through life, and cause ideas once unthinkable and laughable to become a cruel and intractable reality.
It is beyond argument that Oprah Winfrey has used her influence and empathy to make the lives of others better. Her striking speech at last week's Golden Globes was another illustration of her oratory skills and inspiring leadership in a career with many salient examples of each. Her position as a wealthy public figure with multiple channels of media dissemination, from print to television to film, has been infused with a rare triangulation of insight -- as a woman, as African-American, as a former person of poverty -- to produce a singular individual of gravity and merit, a role model for countless people in many different ways.
But, of course, not all ways.
For Oprah Winfrey, like Donald Trump, is a celebrity. And when celebrities, from Jesse Ventura to Arnold Schwartzenegger to Trump, have been elected to public office without any experience producing the products and policies of government, the results have been deleterious on a multitude of measurable levels. Based on the evidence, the most reasonable conclusion to the question of the validity of celebrities as elected officials is clear, and instead of continuing the normalization by reframing the dialogue to include what hypothetically constitutes the "right" celebrity, that bullshit needs to be shut down immediately going forward. Qualifications matter, especially in government.
However, it's true that qualifications aren't always weighted as important in electing officials, so let's assume that we now exist in some new post-fact emotionally hyper-valenced world where the most qualified candidate -- especially one with varied and copious experience in all three branches of government -- cannot always beat the least qualified candidate. What do we do? One strategy is to preempt the normalizing of an unacceptable candidate for public office by immediately critiquing said candidate's past for evidence as to the unacceptability of said candidate. And what's a recent example of this process in action? Look no further than Kid Rock for Senate.
This past summer, when Kid Rock was touted as a viable challenger to Senator Debbie Stabenow -- without much clear evidence that Kid Rock himself expressed such motivations for public office moreso than pushing a new album -- the media did due diligence by exploring and exposing the multitudes of Kid Rock, with many of those multitudes turning out to be not as flattering as one might like. Kid Rock finally went on record to deny any political ambitions, sort of, once it was clear that such a campaign would be a non-starter. (Here's a recap of the flirt and tease.) It's important that political candidates can reconcile their uncomfortable pasts with any future service, if we really believe in the importance of that service. And if a certain level of scrutiny exists for potential Senators, should it not be at a higher level for potential Presidents, regardless of the attributes of the current occupant?
It is beyond argument that, in a career spanning decades, Oprah Winfrey has repeatedly pushed junk science and purveyors of junk science to the masses. In my eyes, this invalidates her as a potential candidate for any public office that might produce products and policies based on even an iota of junk science, and it's completely appropriate for such scrutiny to exist. But it hurts. It's especially maddening in light of the many possible positive contributions to society Oprah could facilitate as President, given her charitable mein and considerable business acumen. But it's always good to know as many of the multitudes of a person as one can, so that the best decision can be made about the future. Can you enjoy Woody Allen films after knowing more about the personal beliefs and private actions of Woody Allen? Where's your personal threshold for tolerance and acceptance?
The idea that we should fight fire with fire in politics burns the whole world, even when the flames are deceptively puny. For example, The Telecommunications Act of 1996 comes from a market-friendly shift in the Democratic Party that arose to counter the market-fellating Republican stranglehold on the electorate in the '80s. And to many people, surveying the current political climate, believe that fighting celebrity with celebrity is the lesser of evils. We already know the answer to the question of Oprah v. Trump, but the ease at which people will ask that question, and pin their hopes and dreams to it, shows how quickly the normalization of celebrity at the highest levels of global power has progressed. And I'm not sure how we will ever reverse that normalization. But I'm sure there's plenty of junk science out there to help me believe what I need to believe to get by.
It is beyond argument that Oprah Winfrey has used her influence and empathy to make the lives of others better. Her striking speech at last week's Golden Globes was another illustration of her oratory skills and inspiring leadership in a career with many salient examples of each. Her position as a wealthy public figure with multiple channels of media dissemination, from print to television to film, has been infused with a rare triangulation of insight -- as a woman, as African-American, as a former person of poverty -- to produce a singular individual of gravity and merit, a role model for countless people in many different ways.
But, of course, not all ways.
For Oprah Winfrey, like Donald Trump, is a celebrity. And when celebrities, from Jesse Ventura to Arnold Schwartzenegger to Trump, have been elected to public office without any experience producing the products and policies of government, the results have been deleterious on a multitude of measurable levels. Based on the evidence, the most reasonable conclusion to the question of the validity of celebrities as elected officials is clear, and instead of continuing the normalization by reframing the dialogue to include what hypothetically constitutes the "right" celebrity, that bullshit needs to be shut down immediately going forward. Qualifications matter, especially in government.
However, it's true that qualifications aren't always weighted as important in electing officials, so let's assume that we now exist in some new post-fact emotionally hyper-valenced world where the most qualified candidate -- especially one with varied and copious experience in all three branches of government -- cannot always beat the least qualified candidate. What do we do? One strategy is to preempt the normalizing of an unacceptable candidate for public office by immediately critiquing said candidate's past for evidence as to the unacceptability of said candidate. And what's a recent example of this process in action? Look no further than Kid Rock for Senate.
This past summer, when Kid Rock was touted as a viable challenger to Senator Debbie Stabenow -- without much clear evidence that Kid Rock himself expressed such motivations for public office moreso than pushing a new album -- the media did due diligence by exploring and exposing the multitudes of Kid Rock, with many of those multitudes turning out to be not as flattering as one might like. Kid Rock finally went on record to deny any political ambitions, sort of, once it was clear that such a campaign would be a non-starter. (Here's a recap of the flirt and tease.) It's important that political candidates can reconcile their uncomfortable pasts with any future service, if we really believe in the importance of that service. And if a certain level of scrutiny exists for potential Senators, should it not be at a higher level for potential Presidents, regardless of the attributes of the current occupant?
It is beyond argument that, in a career spanning decades, Oprah Winfrey has repeatedly pushed junk science and purveyors of junk science to the masses. In my eyes, this invalidates her as a potential candidate for any public office that might produce products and policies based on even an iota of junk science, and it's completely appropriate for such scrutiny to exist. But it hurts. It's especially maddening in light of the many possible positive contributions to society Oprah could facilitate as President, given her charitable mein and considerable business acumen. But it's always good to know as many of the multitudes of a person as one can, so that the best decision can be made about the future. Can you enjoy Woody Allen films after knowing more about the personal beliefs and private actions of Woody Allen? Where's your personal threshold for tolerance and acceptance?
The idea that we should fight fire with fire in politics burns the whole world, even when the flames are deceptively puny. For example, The Telecommunications Act of 1996 comes from a market-friendly shift in the Democratic Party that arose to counter the market-fellating Republican stranglehold on the electorate in the '80s. And to many people, surveying the current political climate, believe that fighting celebrity with celebrity is the lesser of evils. We already know the answer to the question of Oprah v. Trump, but the ease at which people will ask that question, and pin their hopes and dreams to it, shows how quickly the normalization of celebrity at the highest levels of global power has progressed. And I'm not sure how we will ever reverse that normalization. But I'm sure there's plenty of junk science out there to help me believe what I need to believe to get by.
Comments
Post a Comment