Authentic? Never Mind [Paul Krugman for the NY Times]

[repost from my myspace blog, wed June 13, 2007]

I liked this editorial. I thought it was ballsy to lay it all out, and though I don't know anything about this writer (and want to know more, ie. what his particular slant is), it makes a great and complicated point about the concept of 'authenticity,' especially when spun in the media and viewed through the lens of political image cultivation.

I love the detail about renting the red pickup (hey I have one of those!), and the focus on concrete reality, ie. the proposals, the people involved in a campaign, the candidate's past history versus how a politician (and his/her advisors) want us to view him/her. we're not at the movies!, or watching a commercial .. oh wait, we are, laughing ..

all I can say is that I HOPE AL GORE RUNS. I can't help it. feel free to explain to me why the other candidates are better. oh yeah, and class matters. it does. and .. I'm glad someone else has doubts about the word 'authentic' when used as a pr move. I wish I read things like this in the paper every day ..
love
Annie

ps read all the way to the end, the last paragraph is good

*
Authentic? Never Mind
Paul Krugman for The New York Times

Rich liberals who claim they'll help America's less fortunate are phonies.

Let me give you one example - a Democrat who said he'd work on behalf of workers and the poor. He even said he'd take on Big Business. But the truth is that while he was saying those things, he was living in a big house and had a pretty lavish summer home, too. His favorite recreation, sailing, was incredibly elitist. And he didn't talk like a regular guy.

Clearly, this politician wasn't authentic. His name? Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Luckily, that's not how the game was played 70 years ago. FDR wasn't accused of being a phony; he was accused of being a "traitor to his class." Today, though, politics is all about seeming authentic. A recent Associated Press analysis of the political scene asked: "Can you fake authenticity? Probably not, but it might be worth a try."

What does authenticity mean? Supposedly it means not pretending to be who you aren't. But that definition doesn't seem to fit the way the term is actually used in political reporting.

For example, the case of FDR shows that there's nothing inauthentic, in the normal sense of the word, about calling for higher taxes on the rich while being rich yourself. If anything, it's to your credit if you advocate politicies that will hurt your own financial position. But the media seem to find it deely desturbing that John Edwards talks about fighting poverty while living in a big house.

On the other hand, consider the case of Fred Thompson. He spent 18 years working as a highly paid lobbyist, wore well-tailord suits and drove a black Lincoln Continental. When he ran for the Senate, however, his campaign reinvented him as a good old boy: It leased a used red pickup truck for him to drive, dressed him up in jeans and a work shirt, with a can of Red Man chewing tobacco on the front seat.

But Thompson's strength, says Lanny Davis in The Hill, is that he's "authentic."

As a candidate George W. Bush was praised as being more authentic that Al Gore. As late as November 2005, MSN-BC's chief political correspondent declared that Bush's authenticity was his remaining source of strength. But now the AP says that Bush's lack of credibility is the reason his would-be-successors need to seem, yes authentic.

Talk of authenticity, it seems, lets commentators and journalists put down politicians they don't like or praise politicians they like, with no relationship to what the politicians actually say or do.

Here's a suggestion: Why not evaluate candidates' policy proposals, rather than their authenticity? And if there are reasons to doubt a candidate's sincerity, spell them out.

For example, Hillary Clinton's credibility as a friend of labor is called into question, not by her biography or lifestyle, but by the fact that, as The Nation recently reported, her chief strategist - a man Gore fired in 2000 because he didn't trust him - heads a public relations company that helps corporations fight union organizing drives.

And where do you start with Rudy Giuliani? We keep being told that he has credibility on national security, because he seemed so reassuring on Sept. 11. (Some firefighters have condemned his actual performance that day, saying rescue efforts were uncoordinated and firemen died because he provided them with faulty radios. "All he did was give infomation on the TV," said a deputy fire cheif whose son died at the World Trade Center. "He did nothing." And the nation's largest firefighter's union has condemned his handling of recovery efforts in the weeks after Sept. 11.)

But he's spent the years since then cashing in on terrorism, and his decisions about Giuliani Partners' personnel and clients raise real questions about his seriousness. His partners, as The Washington Post pointed out, included "a former police commissioner, a former FBI executive who admitted taking artifacts from ground zero and a former Roman Catholic priest accused of covering up sexual abuse in the church."

The point is that questions about a candidate shouldn't be whether he or she is "authentic." They should be about motives: Whose interests would the candidate serve if elected? And think how much better shape the nation would be in if enough people had asked that question seven years ago.

****


It's all about them

Wayne in WA State's picture

PAUL KRUGMAN: It’s All About Them

Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your father’s political campaign.

Last week, at one of Mitt Romney’s “Ask Mitt” forums, a woman in the audience asked Mr. Romney whether any of his five sons are serving in the military and, if not, when they plan to enlist.

The candidate replied with a rambling attempt to change the subject, but near the end he let his real feelings slip. “It’s remarkable how we can show our support for our nation,” he said, “and one of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping to get me elected, because they think I’d be a great president.”

Wow. The important point isn’t the fact that Mr. Romney’s sons aren’t in uniform — although it is striking just how few of those who claim to believe that we’re engaged in a struggle for our very existence think that they themselves should be called on to make any sacrifices. The point is, instead, that Mr. Romney apparently considers helping him get elected an act of service comparable to putting your life on the line in Iraq.

Yet the week’s prize for most self-centered remark by a serious presidential contender goes not to Mr. Romney, but to his principal rival for the G.O.P. nomination.

Rudy Giuliani has lately been getting some long-overdue criticism for his missteps both before and after 9/11. For example, The Village Voice reports that he insisted that the city’s emergency command center — which included a personal suite with its own elevator that he visited “often, even on weekends, bringing his girlfriend Judi Nathan there long before the relationship surfaced” — be within walking distance of City Hall. This led to the disastrous decision to locate the center in the World Trade Center, an obvious potential terrorist target.

At the same time, Mr. Giuliani is being attacked for his failure to take adequate precautions to protect those who worked on the cleanup at ground zero from the hazards at the site. Many workers have since been sickened by the dust and toxic materials.

For a politician whose entire campaign is based on the myth of his leadership that fateful day — as The Onion put it, Mr. Giuliani is running for “president of 9/11” — anything that challenges his personal legend is a big problem. So here’s what Mr. Giuliani said last week in response: “I was at ground zero as often, if not more, than most of the workers. ... I was exposed to exactly the same things they were exposed to. So in that sense, I’m one of them.”

Real ground zero workers, who were digging through the toxic rubble while Mr. Giuliani held photo ops, were understandably outraged. So the next day Mr. Giuliani tried to recover, claiming that “what I was trying to say yesterday is that I empathize with them because I feel like I have that same risk.” But thanks to the wonders of YouTube, we can all watch Mr. Giuliani’s actual demeanor as he delivered the original remarks. Empathy had nothing to do with it.

What’s striking about these unintentional moments of self-revelation is how much Mr. Romney and Mr. Giuliani sound like the current occupant of the White House.

It has long been clear that President Bush doesn’t feel other people’s pain. His self-centeredness shines through whenever he makes off-the-cuff, unscripted remarks, from his jocular obliviousness in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina to the joke he made last year in San Antonio when visiting the Brooke Army Medical Center, which treats the severely wounded: “As you can possibly see, I have an injury myself — not here at the hospital, but in combat with a cedar. I eventually won. The cedar gave me a little scratch.”

What’s now clear is that the two men most likely to end up as the G.O.P. presidential nominee are cut from the same cloth.

This probably isn’t a coincidence. Arguably, the current state of the Republican Party is such that only extreme narcissists have a chance of getting nominated.

To be a serious presidential contender, after all, you have to be a fairly smart guy — and nobody has accused either Mr. Romney or Mr. Giuliani of being stupid. To appeal to the G.O.P. base, however, you have to say very stupid things, like Mr. Romney’s declaration that we should “double Guantánamo,” or Mr. Giuliani’s dismissal of the idea that raising taxes is sometimes necessary to pay for things like repairing bridges as a “Democratic, liberal assumption.”

So the G.O.P. field is dominated by smart men willing to play dumb to further their personal ambitions. We shouldn’t be surprised, then, to learn that these men are monstrously self-centered.

All of which leaves us with a political question. Most voters are thoroughly fed up with the current narcissist in chief. Are they really ready to elect another?

23 comments links to this post

At 7:33 AM, Anonymous said...

Krugman asks if voters are "really ready to elect another" narcissist. There's more than enough evidence to declare that voters didn't elect the bush cabal.

The real question is whether the current mood of the electorate will tolerate the media assisting another vote rigging.

At 9:56 AM, Mooser said...

Be that as it may, and it just might, be, it will be hard for Rudy to top his latest statement. At any rate, it should be comforting to Patrick Henry, as it shows just how much something ol' Pat would have died for is worth to modren Americans, if you get my drift, nod-nod, wink-wink, nudge-nudge:

"The truth is< that men are tired of liberty!" - Rudy Giuliani

Yup, thas what he said.


I am impressed by Paul Krugman

zeladay's picture

thanks for posting that Wayne, I'm totally glad to read more writing by Krugman. was doing a little research on him, he has an interesting background, and interestingly enough the day the editorial I posted was included in the print version of the Austin American Statesman (reprinted a little while later than it appeared in the NY Times), I tore it out to post on my blog .. later in the day I looked for it on the online Austin American Statesman site and couldn't find it. maybe I missed it, but I always wondered if it was a little too honest for Texas?, laughing ..

so yeah, I had to type that by hand, cause I didn't want to pay to get it from the Times archives ..

more soon, please post more thoughts, I enjoyed reading.
xxAnnie

*
texas for texas: resistance from within
zeladay productions, austin, tx

****


texas for texas: resistance from within

zeladay's picture

I would like to offer my filmmaking capacities and art-making ability to aid Al Gore in the media-based aspect of his campaign. This could take several forms: music videos, gorgeous pre-Presidential oil portraits, or simply a recommended soundtrack to his campaign (I'd suggest beginning w Fatboy Slim's Groove Armada album.)

I also want to note that the pirate-themed party planned in Austin, TX for mid-to-late Sept or early-October is underway, and I want to get in touch w the other Austin-based Al Gore group, as well as the Hays County group. Am also planning to contact the Yale Alums group here in Austin. Ideally the party will be all-ages, am currently checking venues, so that even people under 18 will still be able to attend and gather music/inspiration/literature on voting.

more soon!,
Annie Simpson
zeladay@gmail.com
zeladay.blogspot.com
[zeladay productions, austin, tx]


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.