Presentation
is all
Sun 11.8.20
The role of image in politics is all. A lot of books have been written about Kennedy and Nixon, the beautiful and the ugly. Surprisingly, Nixon apparently was much more savvy about projecting an image than JFK was, but then he had to be, didn't he? Most of his associates came from the field of advertising.
A number of people have noted the Kennedy/Nixon debates as the beginning of the ascendency of image over word or idea and so it is today. Kennedy won the presidency over Nixon because he was better looking, so the theory goes; Nixon with his ugly mug and his 5 o'clock shadow never stood a chance. My own awareness of the projecting image phenomenon occurred during the reign of President Reagan, an actor who played the part of president as "American WASP Father." He was there to offer comfort in time of tragedy, posing for the cameras at all sorts of pseudo events; the picture that emerged was fuzzy, a man remote, not terribly brilliant, himself unable to differentiate between what had really happened to him and what he had acted in the movies. He was our TV, Father Knows Best. It did not matter anymore if what we saw portrayed was real, the appearance of it is what counted. ? What was interesting is that everybody knew this but still went along. Trump was crude, wasn’t he? It didn’t matter that he was trying and to some extent turning the tide on our failed economy.
Debates are a manufactured event in which candidates have to answer questions like quiz contestants, hardly a requirement for the presidency. The pseudo event is staged by the news media for the purpose of providing them with material for further pseudo analysis and commentary. It has reached such a nadir that the MSM cuts off a person’s mike if they’re not interested in what the person has to say. They are manufacturing the whole election event..
This image projection can backfire, take the picture of President Bush on the ship's deck in his flight suit proclaiming victory in Iraq with the big blue banner in the background – hasn’t lived that one down!
Daniel Boorstin, an historian at the University of Chicago posits that the image has taken over for Americans because life is too boring for them. They need a larger than life picture to make life palatable, an artificially enhanced reality. There's some truth to that. The problem with democracy is that it does not allow for majesty, pageantry, a show of psychic and mundane power. Democracy can only show its power through violence and war. Kennedy didn't win the debate because he was prettier than Nixon, but because he was the Prince of Camelot who lived in a magic realm that few of us have ever inhabited.
As a person born and raised in a culture different than that of the majority, I have always been aware of the power of image. In such a situation one develops what blacks call double-consciousness. There is the consciousness and image one creates when swimming in the majority culture and there's the person one is back home. I remember talking to a woman who was taken aback when I said that my appearance was a product, a commodity, something I cultivated to bring me good fortune. Crudely put, but nevertheless true. There is a wonderful passage in the novel, The Lovers, by Marguerite Duras, when the young eurasian girl whose child's body knows to make an object of itself in order to reach beyond her mother's realm. A new face is formed to achieve maturity. She chooses a man's broad brimmed hat and gold lamé shoes to wear in order to seduce the lover. The body acts before the mind and heart fully comprehend what is needed.
I don't think image is something new to politics, be they sexual or national. Think of the royal Egyptians, the Aztecs, the Romans, the kings and queens of Europe, the Chinese dynasties. They ruled by divine right and created powerful images and rituals to signify this right to the masses. Political imagery today is quite paltry in comparison.
The favorite essay this month has been, A New York Story
