This one certainly was written in real time. Sadly, the outcome set more hideous events in motion:
More partisan than impeachment, dirtier than campaign tactics, now comes…the notorious Florida Recount.
As ugly as it is pervasive, as ripe with new vocabulary, more insidious than the argument each side is making is how each side is making its argument. It’s a public relations battle almost more than a legal one. There really is a Talking Points Central. Sound bites and catch phrases really are sent by both sides to party surrogates who then faithfully recite them for broadcast on the news, quotes in newspapers, and repetition on political discussion programs. The catchier the phrase the more favorably the audience will respond, presumably goes the theory. Which is where my befuddlement comes in.
To put it simply, I don’t get it. I don’t understand the reasoning behind the approach. It’s a matter of logic. Not everyone watches the news or reads the paper, not by a long shot. And relatively few check out the political shows on cable stations where talking points proliferate like weeds. Who does watch these shows? I do, because for me the blow-by-blow developments – in this case, the post-election resolution – are a psychological study of human beings behaving badly. Why other people watch I don’t know; what I do know with a fair degree of certainty is that it’s a self-selective audience, whether more educated, more informed, more engaged in or skeptical of the political process, the least likely to be seduced by cleverly crafted spin.
Yet the talking points persist. The latest, a Republican tidbit (though Democrats have been equally adorable) goes like this: "Hand-counting votes in Florida reminds me (the surrogate) of the old Johnny Carson Carmac routine. You hold up a card and divine what the voter intended."
Hah hah hah. It’s a lousy comparison but that’s beside the point. The point is to grab your – the viewer’s – attention, bore the catch phrase into your head, and hope that it sticks in your brain (as opposed to dropping into your craw). If so, you might be prompted to become an unpaid distributor of the party line by repeating it at the office the next day:
"Hey, Mac," you remark, "I heard the funniest joke about the manual recount in Florida being like the old Johnny Carson gag, and it really rang true." Or, if you’re particularly dumb, some kind of transference will occur and you will claim the notion as your own. "Hey, Mac, I’ve been thinking. That hand-counting thing is pretty ludicrous, like Johnny Carson pretending to read through an envelope. Till now it seemed like a good idea but now I realize it doesn’t make much sense."
Furthermore, the fact that you’ve heard this phrase du jour eight times on eight different shows, delivered verbatim by eight different spokespeople doesn’t diminish the message; on the contrary, it reinforces it. You – the discerning viewer, remember, the self-selective audience, that you would even be watching this show – are still considered a potential dupe, a sucker. Gullible and as impressionable as a child, why would you be insulted by eight different people all pretending to have, just now, SPONTANEOUSLY, come up with the same gem?
Beats me. But by the same token, I don’t watch commercials. Supposedly commercials are effective, too. Advertising works.
However this election result plays out, it would be interesting to speculate the role of spin in determining the outcome. Too bad that’s impossible. Meanwhile, I don’t know about you, but I know which side I’m on. I know why I think my side is right, and Carmac the Magnificent is not about to influence my opinion.