This Tuesday afternoon finds me entrapped in a little corner of Hades. I just deplaned in Atlanta from an aircraft graced with no fewer than five children who, free of responsible parental intervention, managed a chorus of screaming in stereo mid-plane, in front and behind me, for a solid ninety minutes. I’m now seated on sticky blue vinyl seats between an imposing woman chowing Popeye’s fried chicken (who for some reason commandeered three straws for her coke), a swarm of kids fighting over the video games, and two sweaty, sleeping guys who look like they just broke out of the county jail. The waiting area is packed with human filler, successfully remote controlled by the nonstop streaming CNN from the flat screens suspended on the ceiling. No different, really, from any other day in American air travel.
“Feelings” acknowledgment:
It disturbs me that we are not given a choice about whether we want to hear CNN’s reporting from speakers blaring above us. It’s discouraging that fast food is the only choice in the C terminal. It makes me sad that two-thirds of the people within eyesight, like two-thirds of Americans, are overweight. I feel angry when I hear CNN report that activists protesting at the convention—not police who surround, intimidate, and pepper spray them–“can make things dangerous.” It gives me knot in my stomach. Oh, but that’s not all.
How about the fact that in the post-primary season Americans are allegedly (say the papers) so desperate for proof that Obama is “average,” and “understands ordinary Americans,” that they’d like him to muffle his oratorical gifts and rein in his intelligence? The right employs, and people buy, the “elitism” charge. They don’t want him to “talk down” by doing things like demonstrating in public that he actually understands intricacies of foreign policy and global economics. I’d like to believe that the pollsters who say small-town, “ordinary” Americans need the candidate to seem “more accessible” and “like them” are wrong; I’d prefer to think they’d want the potential leader of the free world to be wicked smart, stunningly articulate, charismatic, a world-class communicator, and maybe even, oh my god, different from what we’ve had over the last few political cycles. To me it would make sense for even an accomplished person to feel intimidated before the skill set of a really capable U.S. president, or senator. But “ordinary” Americans chose the paragon of mediocrity, W., the little prince, over smarter and better contenders—twice in a row, so who am I to say.
As deep as my loathing for such attitudes run, I know it’s not all our—or “their”—fault. We’ve been track-homed, Wal-Marted, Gapped, TV’d, TEVO’d, and Targeted to the point of idiocy. (I don’t exempt myself; I was sucked in by even the Coke commercials during the Olympics.) The numbing of the masses through consumerism, corporate control, and simple, media packaged framings of “American,” “middle-class,” and “patriotic,” worked better than C. Wright Mills or Aldos Huxley ever imagined. Eric Alterman, in a smart piece in this week’s The Nation, calls this a “constricted establishment consensus,” which reflects
the retrenched power of the established order. It is enforced by aggressive lobbies—the military industrial complex, Wall Street corporate interests—and rationalized by well-upholstered house scholars. The establishment’s strength is its ability to simply exclude alternatives from serious consideration.
What he’s saying is that power brokers tend to be in power because of their ability to convince ordinary people that the way things are is normal, or rational, or right. We drink the Kool-Aid they feed us. So we bite the bait that a new leader on the rise must be “talking down” to lowly average people, while someone like Bush, the ultimate beneficiary of elite privilege, we see as “just like us.” Did early twentieth century human filler want Woodrow Wilson to be “more ordinary”? Did they wish FDR wasn’t so talented? Would they have been relieved if Abraham Lincoln had been a little more of a paunchy shlub?
By which I mean to say: What the hell is wrong with us? Michelle Obama was great last night at the convention. She was poised, strong, clear, and focused. But she was also meticulously packaged as a nonthreatening and, god forbid, not angry black woman. Why should she have to be asserted (as Hillary also was in 1992) as “loving mother,” “caring wife,” “sweet daughter,” and “sister,” over Ivy league-educated badass community advocate and mooj in her own right? Why should she have to get on her knees and admit she loves this country, even though she’s been known to critique it harshly for failing its own ideals? Isn’t that what loving this country used to mean? Why do we have to make her a little smaller to be able to relate? Do we need our heroes shrink-wrapped so we can eat them on the run? Should King have been a little more bumbling at the March on Washington? Come on, people.
Two tracks from here (but no time to follow through):
1. How am I duplicitous in same-same thinking
2. God is reflected in all things, even human filler.