There’s a scene in one of the greatest movies ever where Garland Greene, an infamous serial killer who once drove through three states wearing a woman’s head as a hat, attempts to boil down one of life’s trickier literary devices. As Lynyrd Skynyrd’s “Sweet Home Alabama” plays, Greene (portrayed by Steve Buscemi) remarks to Cameron Poe (who, despite the name, is not a woman….or a mascot for a terrible football team): “Define irony - A bunch of idiots dancing around on a plane to a song made famous by a band that died in a plane crash.”
He may be awesome at killing women and wearing hats, but Greene is not particularly adept at defining irony, in either its classic or modern form. What Greene describes is not verbal irony, dramatic irony, or situational irony (which in the author’s opinion, isn’t really irony at all). No, it’s just one of those Morisettian coincidences that augurs poorly (didn’t think I could slip a second use of “augur” into a blog post this week, did you?) for the future of the term “irony.” Oh well.*
Most people have a decent understanding of verbal irony, but generally call it sarcasm, a technically incorrect equating of a thing with the largest subset of said thing. Still, close enough. Dramatic irony (what Greene was going for here) is more generally confused, and maddeningly so. At its simplest, dramatic irony is “a disparity of expression and awareness: when words and actions possess a significance that the listener or audience understands, but the speaker or character does not.” Soooo simple.
Using this definition, you can argue that Greene isn’t entirely wrong, though you’d largely be wasting your breath. The dancing to the song seems to be his problem, the “action possessing a significance the listener understands, but the character does not.” However, the dancing does not possess any significance…the plane does eventually go down, but not for a few minutes at least, and not due to the dancing. We are not given to think that the idiots are unaware of Skynyrd’s fate, just that they don’t care because IT’S A FUCKING SONG. At best, this is situational irony, a contrast between expected results and actual results, but that’s a large stretch as well.
ANYWAY….this was all a long intro into a rant about politics and the long-anticipated release of my number 1 ranked all-time most ironic event. First, the rant:
Over the past eight years, President Bush has proven himself to be every bit the monkey he looks like. His approval ratings have fallen quicker than Eliot Spitzer’s pants (HAY-OOOOO!!!).** And so, 8 years after mistakenly electing a man who appealed to voters for his down-home personality, his approachability, his seeming disregard for high-falutin language and deep policy discussions, his lack of national experience, and his common manness, all traits we have come to learn are TERRIBLE traits for a president, we are given another chance to right our (and his) wrongs.
And the two top candidates as of today are, respectively: 1.) an approachable guy from a Southern state who doesn’t really “bother”much with or “understand” the economy, whose friendliness with the press helped him beat back a technocratic (and boring) challenger who had a pretty decent record with forward-moving thoughts, and who would love nothing more than to continue a disastrous war in a foreign country because it “feels right” and would seemingly be the “right thing to do;” and 2.) an extremely likeable guy with little to no real political experience running as an “outsider” despite being a multi-millionaire Ivy-educated Senator, whose chumminess with the press and perty mouthwords have allowed him to escape most criticism and beat back a technocratic (and boring) challenger who has a pretty decent record with forward-moving thoughts, who is being supported (vote-wise) almost entirely by richer, more-educated people with confusing/confused motives (and poor blacks, but they don’t exactly count, do they?), and whose devotion to his god and pastor knows almost no bounds.***
WTF, America? Seriously, were we even trying? And here is where irony comes in, or maybe doesn’t. A situation like this MIGHT be ironic if you expected America as a whole to rise up and learn their lesson, reject everything they hated about the last guy as strongly as all their busted polls seem to suggest they feel, only to find they are basically RACING to decide between two guys running with Xeroxed copies of Bush’s CV, and beating back a leftover Clintonite with actual experience in the process. However, I am not sure that anyone can expect anything other than what has happened.
People want to elect people like them. This is what makes them stupid, and, Q.E.D., what makes the people they elect stupid. The people they elect either (a) actually ARE like them, mindless idiots with no sense of history or rationality or (b) the kind of people best suited to selling to morons, so they can rule morons. Awesome.
Anyway, I’m running out of steam, because I only care in as much as everyone is being ridiculous about this. Can anyone explain to me what one of the presidential candidates would do in his first year that (a) would be remarkably different than the other candidates?, and (b) would be something demonstrably positive? History says “Eh, I’m sorry, I…uh…have a boyfriend, but I DO think you are an awesome person and all, but, to answer your question….no…I don’t think so…no.”
And now, the moment you have all been waiting for: Sean’s MOST HYSTERICALLY IRONIC THING EVER award…..
And the winner is….
MARY WOLLSTONECRAFT!!!!
(Voiceover) “Mary earned this award by writing a little ditty called “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman,” a plea for men everywhere to recognize that women are equal to their male counterparts (not naturally inferior as was thought before) but lacked the education necessary to express it. Super-ironically, though, Mary was forced to include her thoughts in novel storybook form for the women because even the educated ones refused to read pamphlets, histories or philosophy due to those forms being “too boring” or “stuffy.” To top it all off with an ironic cherry, the novel (Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman) was published posthumously because Mary died in childbirth, an exquisitely hilarious means of death for the first real feminist. Oh…and her daughter’s writing sucked and paled in comparison to that of her husband.”
* I am aware that the picture has nothing to do with Garland Greene, but I do love shirtless men.
** I am unaware of any scientific study that proves Spitzer’s pants would fall faster than mine would. Galileo might even suggest that, in a frictionless environment, his pants would fall EXACTLY as fast as mine, even though my pants are made of heavy hooker-proof material. Fortunately, friction exists (mostly in my pants, which is why I can afford to make them hooker-proof), so this joke still works.
*** I also have it on good authority that both candidates are fathers to black children.
It’s probably not even worth doing this (since you’re the epitome of the rich white guy who is educated enough to sound like he knows what’s going on politically and vaguely does care what’s going on politically but ultimately doesn’t REALLY know or care since he’s a) not all that interested and b) rich and white and therefore will be just fine regardless of who wins or loses), but I’ll go ahead and correct some of the more glaring inaccuracies because I have little better to do.
1) “[Obama has] little to no real political experience.”
He actually has fairly extensive [i]political[/i] experience, albeit on a small/local level (which is a positive to some people who care strongly about grassroots politics*). He also has a pretty decent amount of legislative experience at the same level. What he lacks is executive experience, foreign policy experience, and experience on the national level.
That doesn’t invalidate your intended criticism, but it does make your expressed criticism rather inaccurate.
2) Obama is labeled chummy with the press.
Actually, one of the weirdest aspects of this campaign to people who obsess over these things** is that Obama is even more distant from the press than HRC when it comes to interacting with them directly, but they love him anyway. He holds almost no standard press conferences, let alone the frequent buddy-buddy chats that McCain engages in daily. But again, the press seems to love him anyway.
Again, this doesn’t really attack your central criticism. I just find your central criticism a) irrelevant (guys like FDR were perfectly chummy with the press and b) factually a bit off.
3) Obama has beaten back a “leftover Clintonite with actual experience”.
Leftover Clintonite, sure. I still don’t understand why Clinton is the “experienced” candidate, though. No one seems able to explain this one; they just assert its truth and move on. She’s never written a law and gotten it through the legislature (until her Senate term, which gives her exactly 4 more years of experience than Obama), she’s never negotiated with foreign leaders, and she’s never shown particularly good judgment on issues of national importance.
If you’re talking about connections and eventual appointees to key positions, then hers might be slightly better than Obama’s right now, but ultimately they’ll be roughly the same.
Finally, I just object to the notion that Obama voters don’t really have any good reasons for supporting him beyond pretty words. I also like the focus of his theoretical foreign policy should he win much better than HRC’s. I like his approach to building the Democratic Party and a liberal governing coalition. I like the fact that independents seem to trust him a lot more than they trust Hillary, which will be a huge factor running against someone with the reputation of McCain. And yes, again, I love his pretty pretty words.
*Shouldn’t be assumed to include me, since it doesn’t.
**Does include me.
That didn’t take long, though the quickness seems to have weakened the response. Much like the sex I’ll be having with your mother tonight. First, let me agree that as a fairly well-off white dude, I will be fine no matter who wins. Second, I know a little more than you think I know, since I shadow-follow politics so I have something other than sports to be angry and depressed about. Also so that I can respond easily to these “corrections.” However, the overall point that I “don’t really care” is probably pretty accurate, mostly because the things I’ve ever “really cared” about can be counted on approximately one Alfonseca hand. However, I know that you actually “care” about things you “care about,” which seems like a nice character trait, so I will reward you with more of my words.
1.) Capitalize or Italicize “real,” and that’s about it. You could also read in context by how I described Bush as lacking national experience and realize where I was going with it.
2.) I knew that if you commented you would point this out, and I thought about changing it to read more like “He’s one-sidedly chummy with the press like a cool kid followed around by douchy nerds waiting to touch his letterman’s jacket,” but then decidedly it’s hard to capture subtle (though largely meaningless) distinctions when you are writing a 5 line long description of one person. Point is, he’s skated on criticism because he is well-liked or revered to the point of sickness by the press. No matter whether he courts it or not.
3.) I think it’d be more effective to argue how important experience actually IS rather than arguing about who has more of it.
I don’t think HRC was dusting the mantles during those 8 years in the White House…if anything, her constant self-interjection into politics as a mere First Lady is half the reason she’s detested so much on the right (WOMEN?!?!? IN POLITICS?!?!?). That time matters.
And yes, she has four more years of experience in the only legislative body that matters to a President, which, given that they both announced for the Presidency (and have been largely useless legislatively since) in February 2007, is also TRIPLE the amount of time that Obama has. Four years DOES matter. So does her relatively strong record (especially for a junior Senator..maybe suggesting something about how her prior experience matters???) in bipartisan agreements. If at the end of the day, her lack of judgment in issues of national importance is just code for “she voted for Iraq,” then to me that’s no better than reverse 9/11ing on par with Giuliani. If you think her record absent Iraq is substantially different than Obama’s was or would have been, I’d like to see it/know why.
Also, contacts matter. The phrase “ultimately they’ll be roughly the same” is question begging to say the least. Yes, if he wins the White House, his contacts will be roughly the same a few years in as HRCs are now. Great…that uh, doesn’t mean anything.
As for the last paragraph, it might all be true. However, it doesn’t have anything to do with the post. You may very well have all those reasons to support Obama. Good for you, and I am not faulting you for believing he’d be a good president for those reasons. But if you could look me in the face and tell me you think that even 30% of his current supporters could explain ANY of those things (save the general electability) to you and liked him for any reason other than his pretty words and personal appeal, I would laugh in your face…which would be convenient, since it’d be right there. The point isn’t that these guys are bad candidates, although I happen to think they both are (I would also prefer to have a robot as president, but so it goes). The point is that people DON’T CARE that they are/are not bad candidates to run a country. They care whether they are nice, funny, or not a woman.
Hmm, in reading your comment’s conclusion, I realize I took entirely the wrong message from the original post. Yes, you were saying most people have dumb reasons for liking the candidates (with which I obviously agree, since all people are idiots), not that the likely nominees are inherently flawed in the same way Bush is. My bad.
But I do think the Hillary thing is worth elaborating upon. Iraq is obviously a big part of it- she blew the biggest decision this country has made in at least the last decade (and so did I, for the record, but I was just a punkass college student), so yes, that should be a big deal for someone running on her decades of experience. But there are other issues, as well. Hillary blew health care reform in the early 90’s after being placed in charge of the White House’s policy, and she blew it badly enough that 15 years later we’re finally back to where we were when the whole thing exploded in her face. Call it judgment, call it legislative ability, call it bad PR management, call it whatever you’d like: Hillary took responsibility for national health care reform and fumbled the ball atrociously. In more recent years, there’s Clinton’s running to the center in preparation for this election. I don’t object to the idea of her getting some centrist cred, but I do object to the issues she chose to use. Co-sponsoring a flag burning amendment is pretty terrible coming from a Democratic icon sitting in a safe New York seat in the Senate, and it makes me question just how she’d act as president on similar “culture war” issues. So, yeah, there’s a few of the reasons I question her judgment.
Sorry, left this out, but I meant to include the first Clinton’s crappity crap crap record on gay rights (DOMA and “Don’t ask”) in that last bit about so-called culture war issues.
Yeah, a fine line to be sure…the candidates themselves are not flawed in the same way….just the way people think about the candidates. I’m pretty sure that’s not better, btw. Also, “culture wars” are the single best wars…other than “race wars” of course. Unforunately, I hear we are moving past the latter, so I will have to be happy with culture wars.