As Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and The Onion regularly demonstrate, sometimes you have to get silly to get to the truth of American politics. The guys writing their material are pros, but sometimes amateur cut-ups can do just as well.

You are looking at a fun couple enjoying themselves in a replica of the Oval Office at CivicFest, “a vibrant civic festival celebrating Minnesota and American history, democracy, and the U.S. Presidency.” The event was held in Minneapolis during the Republican National Convention; in this case, it provided the locale for a delegate party. And these two do know how to party.

I’d kill to know what she’s whispering in his ear, but that’s beside the point. This photo inadvertently captures the history of the American presidency during the last ten years. Start with Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. Might have been just like that. Now fast forward to John McCain and Sarah Palin. . . . Unfair? Sure, and yet there certainly is an erotic undercurrent to the current billing that leads directly to fantasy shots like this one. And in between: the frat boy, George Bush. Laura doesn’t even need to be in the picture for the rest to ring true. He’s been playing, and playing at being president, for seven years. In fact, Bush always looks most comfortable when he’s goofing around at some ceremonial gig. He probably can be a lot of fun; he just needs to be in another house.

This photo may also be prophetic. The basic idea of the CivicFest replica is that ordinary citizens can put themselves virtually into the center of the U.S. government. That, of course, is not too far from the idea of democratic representation: the people elect an official to represent their interests while providing for the general welfare. What has happened, however, is that this principle of representation has become entangled with a politics of personal identification. People are encouraged to vote for those who seem just like them: ordinary people, you know, the kind who work hard but don’t take politics too seriously. Frat boys and so-called “mavericks” seem to fit the bill, never mind that most of us are not rich and have not spent the last two decades in Congress. And don’t get me started on beauty queens.

The couple in the photo are just having a good time. More power to them. One of the secrets to the success of American politics is that political parties can make politics fun. God help us if it becomes nothing but solemn debates. But I keep coming back to this picture. It gets truer still: a stage set bedecked with the symbols of American government, yet in fact the party in power has been playing, not just with some aide, but with the integrity of our most basic institutions and the lives of our military personnel. And if American voters vote to put someone just like them into the picture, it will get worse yet.

One can’t help but feel wistful about what might have been. Even the dippy CivicFest has some sense of direction. Their blurb for the replica says, “Experience the White House Oval Office and sit behind the president’s desk, sign a bill into law and have a souvenir photo.” Ordinary people will be there for the photo, but they are given the benefit of the doubt regarding their fantasies of power. “Sign a bill into law”–what a thought. Maybe even a good bill, one that would serve the people. It could happen, you know, if only enough people would, for one day of the year, get serious.

Photograph by Todd Heisler/New York Times.

 1 Comment

One can only wonder what the McCain campaign had in mind when they decided to hold a rally this weekend in Cedarburg, Wisconsin against the backdrop of a confectioner’s shop called “The Chocolate Factory,” but surely the allusion to “Willy Wonka” could not have escaped them.  Lest you forget, the world of Willy Wonka is a child’s utopia, a fantasyland where trees and grass are edible, ice cream doesn’t melt, the very finest of chocolate is abundant, and all of the labor is done by the Oompa-Loompa—a dark-haired, bronze-skinned, dwarfish tribe from Loompaland, a small island in the Pacific Ocean—who work for cacao beans.  And what child wouldn’t love such a world?  The problem for McCain, of course, is that children don’t vote and surely adults are smart enough to know that the promises for a comparable political utopia, say a world in which an accumulated national debt of $9,674,423,286,469.86 (and growing at the rage of $1.93 billion per day) can be managed with extensive tax cuts, is no less a fantasy than Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory.

But then again, maybe not. 

The photograph above is somewhat telling in this regard.  The photographer is standing at an oblique angle to the stage from which McCain speaks; the camera is aimed not at McCain, but at the storefront that is behind him and so what we see directly are the faces of customers sitting inside The Chocolate Factory; beyond that we see a reflection of what they see, including McCain’s back and the audience that he sees and addresses.  And the difference between the two audiences could not be more pronounced.  Those in the front appear to be on the same plane as McCain, neither looking up at him nor down upon him; they are thus positioned visually to judge him as equal citizens. The expressions on their faces are uniformly intense, seemingly unaffected by his appeals if not in fact somewhat skeptical of them. One could imagine them asking hard questions. But of course McCain has his back to this audience and thus doesn’t see them. In the world of fantasy, ignorance is bliss.  By contrast, the audience he does see—and indeed, the one he speaks down to—looks up at him with childlike adulation; and note here how the faces that are the most prominent in the reflection of the audience that stands in front of him are those of smiling children.  It is hard to imagine them asking pointed questions.

Two audiences, the photograph seems to suggest, both youthful and thus pointed to the future, but one mature and reflective, the other immature and animated by its sweet tooth; one seemingly ignored by the candidate and the other cast as children easily enticed by the fantasy of endless pleasures that exact no palpable costs.  And the question the photograph seems to ask is, which audience will the American people choose to be?

Photo Credit:  Bryan Snyder/Reuters

 3 Comments

Something strange is going on at the Republican National Convention. It started a few weeks ago as the list of official no shows started to unfold and grow longer by the day. The list grew longer still as hurricane Gustav acquired force in the Gulf. As the winds roared toward New Orleans, the GOP went into full theatrical mobilization to show the world that, this time, they had leaders who were READY to LEAD. Of course, those same leaders had nothing to do and a lot of air time to fill. The result was to gear up for a virtual convention. A map of the Gulf Coast became a giant screen saver in the convention hall, and Bush and McCain appeared around the edges like pop-up videos.

Here workers in St. Paul are joined by President Bush from the FEMA center in Washington. His briefing on the hurricane preparations included the news that he would not be attending the convention. Too much to do, you know. Then a funny thing happened on the way to the coast. Hurricane Gustav missed New Orleans. Crisis over. Everything under control. Local authorities just need some time to tidy up the place before letting everyone back in.

And so Bush would come to the convention after all, right? Wrong. As I’m writing this, he just gave his speech on the big screen, from the White House, in Washington. Huh? Maybe FEMA is still such a mess that the president has to help them calm down from the near miss, or maybe there is something to earlier rumors about the strategic value in having a little distance between Bush and McCain. I have no doubt that this question will be the subject of deep thought in media commentary this week. I’d like to take a different tack, however.

One of the characteristics of the digital age is that we are surrounded with screens. The multiple arrays and chance encounters with screens of all sizes create a distinctive aesthetic, one still in the making. Some of the time photojournalism is picking up on the digital environment and channeling that aesthetic. For example, there are many photographs from the primary campaign of candidates caught on screens of camcorders, cameras, cellphones, showroom TVs, airplane videos, you name it. What may be merely artistic innovation becomes particularly interesting when it captures something deeper: some current of change or unrecognized need or latent possibility. Or perhaps a hidden betrayal.

The truth captured by these vignettes of politics in a digital age is that the leadership of the Republican Party is there but not there, reporting for duty but actually somewhere else, ready to speak to their fellow citizens but only at a distance. They are virtual leaders, projecting concern while hiding behind whatever photo-op, publicity stunt, surprise announcement, or shopworn excuse they can use to avoid facing the people. Where a leader might have stood, ready to engage the American people on those issues that will test and define the nation, we see instead only an image. Indeed, today I heard a convention speaker extolling John McCain’s face. Really. The face that you see on your TV, for example. Right there, on the screen. The virtual leader.

Photographs by Brendan Smialowski/New York Times.

 1 Comment

Graphic from The Big Picture.

 0 Comments

Robert and I were trained in the discipline of rhetoric where we cut our teeth as scholars by studying the great speeches of the past, beginning in antiquity with Demosthenes and Cicero and extending through the nineteenth century with the likes of Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and culminating in the last century with the orators like Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X.  Some insist that the venerable art of oratory has died in the late modern era, but it was alive and well tonight in the Mile High City where over 80,000 people congregated in a football stadium to listen to political speeches. And what speeches they were, from first to last, including both a former vice president and Noble Prize winner and a retired nurse from Pittsboro, North Carolina. The apogee was reached by the guest of honor, whose words and tones subtly and eloquently channeled the strains of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have A Dream,” delivered 45 years ago to the day. But for me the final speaker’s oration recalled memories of another Democratic National Convention Speech delivered 28 years ago in New York City that ended with these words, “the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream will never die.”

Yes We Can!

Photo Credit: Stephen Crowley/New York Times

 10 Comments

One result of Hillary Clinton’s speech at the Democratic convention has been another round of stories about her supporters who still harbor resentment over having to yet again watch a male grab the nomination. For awhile, the Angry White Woman voter will loom large, much like the Rural White Male who is such a problem for the Democrats except when giving Hillary her biggest primary victories. But if you look around the convention you can see another group of women who are having, if not the perfect day, a convention for the ages. I’m referring to the black women who are doubly benefiting from the Obama nomination.

You can see lots of images like this one in the slide shows or on the tube. From the look of things, these women realize that the Obama nomination is a truly historic moment, one that will empower many people, male and female, who have been waiting too long for their share of the American Dream. Equally important, they probably understand that Michelle Obama may be as important as her husband for redefining America’s image of itself.

No Hillary supporter should deride those who would expect to benefit from standing beside a president. To be fair, however, the anger many women feel is too deep to be taken lightly. Susan Faludi’s editorial yesterday provides an historical account of how little came of the passage of the 19th Amendment 100 years ago, and how much has been lost recently. She could have gone back to the passage of the 15th Amendment, when the suffrage movement was told, after working for the abolition of slavery, that the woman’s hour had not yet come. For educated white women who know they have been passed over before, this story must be getting old.

Faludi also reports that 25% of Clinton voters favored “the clear insanity of voicing their feminist protest by voting for John McCain.” If otherwise intelligent, politically engaged people feel pushed to that extreme, they must be hurting. More to the point, such deep anger reflects a genuine sense of injustice, one that should not be forgotten amidst the glare and good vibe of an Obama nomination. Nor should otherwise progressive commentators turn women against one another; that old trick will get enough play on the right this fall.

So, let’s give Hillary her moment in the sun, but let’s not forget who remains in the shadows. Obama’s nomination means many things, and one result is greater empowerment for those who have had to endured discrimination due to both race and gender. Indeed, as I’ve suggested before, Obama is where he is not because he is speaking about an ideal future, but because he is speaking to an America that is already changing for the better. The photograph above is one more example of how the future evoked by the Democratic candidate is already present among us.

Black women are an important part of that picture. Today, however, they are likely to be invisible–again. Let’s hope that doesn’t last. It shouldn’t: all we have to do is look around the room.

Photograph by Joe Amon/The Denver Post.

Update: I wrote this post before hearing Hillary Clinton’s speech last night, so I want to add that if the pro-Clinton resistance to Obama continues, you can’t blame her.  Hillary reaffirmed her commitment to those who have been invisible to their government, and she drew her concluding inspiration from the African-American abolitionist and suffragist Harriet Tubman.  The reference apparently was lost on some.  The television network I was watching seemed to think that Chelsey Clinton was the face of the speech, and news coverage today was back on the Angry White Woman.  Different pictures from different media, all of them partial, but I’ll bet that photojournalism is providing the best account of the demographic reality of the convention.

 0 Comments