Apparently there has been talk of a government shut down since Congress can’t agree on budget issues (an oversimplification, I’m sure, but we’ll run with it). In this video, a Fox News anchor has a discussion with Michael Steele, former chairman of the Republican National Committee, and David Mercer, former deputy national finance director for the Democratic National Committee. In 1995, a shut-down occurred and was a “win for the Democrats” and the anchor speculates whether such an event will occur again. Steel believes there won’t be a shut down though he says there should be in order to deal with the budget crisis. Mercer, who also doesn’t believe there will be a shut down, doesn’t support the idea and believes that if it does happen, Republicans will be there to blame as it will take “us” off track of fiscal recovery. I feel like Fox News is simultaneously trying to be “fair and balanced” while also playing up the “friends and enemies” concept by having two people on this “panel” from different parties (though for once the Republican is wearing a blue tie while the Democrat is wearing a red tie – nice switch, guys).
Though the video is titled, “Does Anyone Win if Government Shuts Down?” it’d probably be more accurate to say, “Does a Government Shutdown Suck Worse for Republicans or Democrats?” as that’s more of the focus of the discussion. Congress is the focus of this panel and most thought goes towards whether this will help one party gain more popularity than another. People outside of Washington are referred to as voters, and only mentioned once by Mercer, when he states that “Voters are split on whether there should be concern about a shutdown.” There’s no mention of whether voters are actually concerned about a shutdown, what they think about a shutdown, or, if there was to be a shutdown, how it would affect them. It reminds me of Loewen’s discussion of textbooks at the beginning of “Watching Big Brother”: “Although textbook authors include more social history than they used to, they still regard the actions and words of the state as incomparably more important than what the American people were doing, listening, sleeping in, living through, or thinking about” (pg. 220). I feel like this is a really strong example of this, in “history in the making” on our news networks. Rather than talk about the government and include how it could be affecting the “average Joe” (I cringe to use that after the 2008 election but a better metaphor is beyond my reach at the moment), the focus is all on the government and Americans who are not Congress men and women are referred to only as “voters” (and don’t even seem to know whether they should be concerned by political issues).
Even when talking about political parties, few members are mentioned by name. Speaker of the House John Boehner is mentioned the most and a few other Congress members are mentioned, but generally wide groups are referred to – Republicans, Dems (as Democrats are called at one point), Tea Partiers. In the sections from American Pageant, governing bodies are repeatedly portrayed as one large entity, like in this example: “Berlin a became hugely symbolic issue for both sides. At stake was not only the fate of a city but a test of wills between Moscow and Washington” (pg. 891). Moscow and Washington sound like people, not cities in two of the largest countries in the world. In a similar vein, the two main parties in American politics begin to sound like single individuals, rather than large groups of people who have differing opinions among their own party. They become a sort of faceless entity that further disconnects from the other members of the those parties – again, the voters. When described like this, I feel like I have no connection to the people who work in Congress – despite the fact that I have power to vote for them.
Out of curiosity, I searched for the most recent Glenn Beck video I could find on Fox News (“American Taxpayers Funding Terror?” it’s called – really interesting, in typical scary Beck fashion). Within the first minute or so, he’d mentioned the American people, the “Average Joes,” at least three times. A good reason for what makes his sort of rhetoric so damn popular – who wants to watch news all about the government when Glenn Beck mentions “us?”
I love your point about Beck, at the end -- it's really quite ingenious, the way he manages to champion anti-intellectualism (the "Average Joe"), and advertise F.A. Hayek at the same time. I'm not sure how he manages it. I think one could almost say Beck has constructed a Schmittian politic, placing the government and the "Average Joes" in direct opposition to one another -- in the same way, of course, that Flynn does in Pursuit of Honor. Naturally, as Schmittian enemies, it doesn't matter what characteristics they share or don't share -- they are simply enemies by declaration. So it doesn't matter if they're actually similar in nature. Kind of like the Tea Partiers! -- using Saul Alinsky to organize against the left. Anyway.
ReplyDeleteAnd of course, the "us" Glenn Beck is addressing actually excludes a large portion of Americans, since it snubs poor people, liberal people, intellectuals, and all non-Christians.... But everyone knows that. Except maybe "us".