While preparing Sunday morning biscuits and gravy, I stepped away from the pallid protestations of Sunday Morning talk shows and ventured into the thicket with Glen Beck. Yes he is a deep right wing yahoo, but I wanted to hear some words about the new President without the usual cast of worthless, empty suits.
And for the 1/2 to an hour I listened, he delivered. Point by point, he and his panel used commonly available facts and called all the assertions of Trump and his spokespeople lies. Out right lies. Callers would dial up and try to justify the statements and they wouldn’t have it. And they saw no real reason to lie about crowd size or any thing else at this time. It didn’t matter but Trump and team couldn’t help themselves.
Next segment was making fun of left wing celebrities, Paltrow was the convenient target (and jeeeez, what a target). Then the women’s marches.
And there they had a point. Some of them were worthy of ridicule. Silly signs and vagina hats. They have been the talk of the country. I have heard of that from co-workers. One commented that Madonna made a career out of acting like a whore she shouldn’t be surprised if men (Trump) treated women like one. I may not agree with that sentiment but it does resonate outside Hollywood and NYC.
Anyway, I think the women’s march did not achieve much because it was portrayed as not serious. Costumes, silly signs, a parade like atmosphere. The civil rights marches of the 60s and the anti war marches were taken seriously as the people in them were serious. They dressed in serious Sunday or business clothing. The spokespeople used calm measured tones in their arguments. Citing moral and civil law. For the anti war protests, the dress was different but limited fooling around. Once again, the spokespeople were often (not always) not shrill or over the top, presented their case well, etc…. When not, it just gave ammunition to the forces of war and oppression; the country recoiled and we got Nixon.
In both instances, control was attempted on the deportment and content of the marchers; showing the nation they are serious people.
Many may not like it but image matters. Acting like you are in a gay pride parade, dreaming up funny/disrespectful signs or dressing like a Sunday hike in the woods may make sense to you, but not to the people you want to influence and bring to your side. All you do is provide ammo for the right wing’s derision and scorn from the rest of the country.
If you think Trump and his team attaining positions of power is a serious problem, then act like its serious when opposing it. The rest of the country will then be inclined to listen and you couldn’t be dismissed as “typical liberal out of touchers”
Ridge
very very interesting, thanks. interesting point about the constumes and signs in the march and I agree with you. for comparison look at the footage of the Selma march.
Part of it is the decrease in formality in dress and manners. Some would say coarsening. Maybe. But with the casualness in business dress, the impact of more “formal” attire could have a striking effect.
Particularly professional women who are going to have to take the lead. They have the organizational skills and the network to make real inroads across party lines.
The word is coming out that the Washington Congressional offices are swamped. Better to act at the state and district offices. And a crowd of well dressed constituents would have a telling effect; particularly outside urban areas where it would not take on a carnival atmosphere. The workers in the office would know them, probably went to school or church with them. That type of one on one knowledge has a strong reverberations when reporting back to Washington.
You will need that strong local support, Democratic and Republican, if the Congressman is going to have the courage to stand up to Trump thugs and Republican pressure.
R
So, Glen Beck irrational whack job was just an act?
While you touched on negative responses to celebrity participation in the women’s march, it’s a larger issue. Celebrity advocacy can be helpful in the early stages of a candidate building up his/her name recognition. IMO is was helpful to Obama in ’08. Can’t recall if there was much celebrity participation in the ’92 election for Clinton, but whatever there was, it didn’t hurt him.
What didn’t help Gore was Bill Clinton hobnobbing with and hosting celebrities for overnight stays at the WH. The kibosh was effectively put on the latter after Clinton.
With the internet, the public is more aware of who a President hosts at WH dinners. IMO, the Obamas went over the line the size of the guest list for State Dinners and included far too many celebrities and super wealthy people. Yeah, sure more celebrities wanted to attend Obama soirees than GWB soirees, but the general public expects presidential and not Hollywood in the WH.
Hillary for campaign appearances and fundraising went way over the top in using celebrities. What schmuck struggling to earn $50,000 a year is going to get warm fuzzies over celebrities throwing several hundred thousand dollars into the Clinton campaign at a private dinner in Beverly Hills? Or booty shaking singers on stage at a fundraiser? Clinton didn’t have time to campaign in WI or MI because she was privately busy collecting loot from wealthy elites and celebrities. And what did she buy with that billion dollars? Probably no more than if she’d spent $750 million.
“So, Glen Beck irrational whack job was just an act?”
I’d say 80% whack job and 20% rational; which is about right for most media conservatives.
The celebrities are non-entities to most people, except as something to look at in People or TMZ while sitting in the waiting room. The breathless reporting of their doings is only valuable in their “company” towns. Not at the nation at large. Nor does their endorsement mean much to voters in 99 % of the country. I mean, who the hell cares if Deniro is for Hillary?
So chasing those endorsements and money would be valuable in the circles HRC and Bill frequented, but not folks in Michigan or Penn; whose support she really needed.
My problem with the marches were the carnival attitude. Instead of acting like the course of the nation is at stake; its like they were marching to a picnic. Its not an old fart attitude but the scenes displayed on TV to the nation where editors would normally pick out the most visually exciting. And reporters would go to the most colorful for comment as they would make good copy. Add blogs, facebook, twitter, etc.. with everyone posting their cute 2 cents; you have a message out of control.
What united the marches of the 60’s, where life and liberty were at stake, was the solemn silent way they carried themselves. Dignified. Even some of the student marches. That was not the impression given from the reporting on the women’s marches. And that impression is what influences the nation as a whole.
R