I am enjoying my fifteen milliseconds of microfame.
For those who missed it, I wrote a diary on Sunday evening stating -- or perhaps I was concern-trolling the Right -- that I hoped that Bristol Palin won on Dancing with the Stars because it would provide a perfect and readily digestible metaphor for the far Right's corruption of our political process in its eternal battle against Sanity, Facts, and Merit.
As our friend KingOneEye alerted me, Brian Baird of Fox "News" included a quote from my diary on Bristol Palin's "success" in a video segment entitled "Palin Derangement Syndrome," in which I mentioned that she was apparently being voted to advance, despite her relative lack of skill, by supporters of what I called her "grifter Mom." (Actually, I prefer the phrase "Mama Grifty." T-shirt, anyone?)
Today I want to be more serious. Bristol Palin has human feelings, so I want to offer a partial apology. I also want to open up a grown-up conversation with her, one that she sorely needs, about politics and fame.
(1) Preliminary rounds:
Before addressing Bristol, here's a news update:
Bristol Palin advanced to the DWTS finals last night, with co-favorite Brandy unexpectedly eliminated. I'm not a qualified judge of dance -- I know what I like, and I also know what I can't do -- but experts not on the DWTS payroll seem to agree that no sentient human being would consider Bristol a more talented or competent or engaging dancer than Brandy. For dial-in users, I present just a photo here and save a video for comments.
This week, and especially today, the question of "Is DWTS politicized?" has gained even more prominence. As noted above, my (and our, since it references Daily Kos) tiny role in this started with Fox "News":
and today continued with CNN's Carol Costello's column, which I'll address in greater detail below.
I would have paid good money to be able to associate the phrase "grifter Mom" with Sarah Palin in the national media -- although I prefer the phrase "Mama Grifty," which I hereby copyright, MUST CREDIT SENECA DOANE!!1!, and if anyone has mad skillz at t-shirt production, let me know -- so thanks to Brian and Carol and their respective corporate masters. Glad we could work together.
Most importantly, the PR counteroffensive -- tut-tutting incoherently that either Bristol is getting through on talent and pluck rather than political manipulation or that it's bad taste to raise the question at all -- has begun in earnest. It echoes the campaign to convince people that Sarah Palin, despite all evidence, is qualified to govern.
For Mama Grifty, the drive is to divert attention from her incoherence, inability to answer serious questions seriously, and stage-managed presence. (Does anyone but me feel bad for the boy assigned to try to get up into Willow's room on Sarah Palin's Alaska so she could show off her tough parenting skills for the camera? Do they think that people are too dumb to realize that that wasn't a hidden camera and that everyone knew that they were being filmed?) Her game is condemning people for thinkin' they are smarter'n her when they try to steer the conversation away from platitudes and generalities. Her advantage is that most people don't understand, and are uneasy with taking tough stances about, even the simpler complexities of politics.
Paradoxically, the campaign to get Bristol to win DWTS -- which I don't need to presume is a centrally organized conspiracy rather than a decentralized effort of Sarah Palin fans to win a victory for their goddess over the evil forces of Talent -- is harder in some ways than the campaign to advance Sarah's career (and bankbook.) The latter only requires that people not think through abstract issues and go with their (easily manipulated) gut instincts instead. For the former, you have to get people to disbelieve their own eyes.
Now there I go sounding cruel again. It's time for my partial apology to Bristol Palin. I happen to think that she has the makings of a decent person, but also that she has pressures on her to be her Mom's tool beyond those which many of us can imagine. It's hard to put too much blame on a 20-year-old for being used by her parents -- Mama Grizzly/Grifty is also Gypsy's Mama Rose --and every time Bristol is used, it makes it harder emotionally for her to confront the reality of her being used. Going from unwed mother to abstinence spokeschild must have been an enormous psychological relief; whatever consultant came up with that one probably got a huge holiday bonus. To confront what she's becoming? That's got to be hard -- as we'll see in some quotes from her I address below.
Pull up a chair and sit a spell, Bristol; I need to talk to you adult to adult. I am, honestly, doing this out of kindness.
(2) My open letter to Bristol:
I'm sorry if what I and others who agree with me have said has hurt your feelings. That's not my intention. But in a talent competition, people's feelings get bruised: often when they lose, but also when they win when they and everyone else knows deep down (or not so deep down) that they should have lost. You are coming into adulthood now, and that means that it's a good idea to learn to confront reality. You're being treated like your mother's pawn. I don't blame you for that; the pressure on you has to be enormous. But you chose to become (or acquiesced in becoming) a national story, a symbol. Even as someone who thinks that you may end up being a fine person, that makes you a legitimate target for -- not a political attack -- but cultural criticism. I hope that, if you read this, you do notice the kind and supportive portions below as well as the blunt honesty.
I want to start with this interview with you from the dead tree sibling of Fox "News," Rupert Murdoch's New York Post. (n.b.: I'll be quoting the whole article, but this will fall under the Fair Use exception for criticism, as I'll be taking it apart line by line. Editors, if you disagree, redact away.)
Bristol Palin is lashing back at critics who believe her Cinderella run on "Dancing With the Stars" is somehow being fueled by her mother's popularity.
"Somehow." Did you note that word expressing incredulity, Bristol? Somehow, this is supposedly happening. But it's not "somehow"; we know "how": there has been an organized campaign in the teabagging media -- Tammy Bruce is one example -- to get people to vote for you because people believe that your winning would advance your mother's career.
Can we agree, Bristol, that this is something that doesn't have to be just a matter of dueling assertions, but that we can actually check -- read message boards, listen to tapes of radio broadcasts, etc., -- to see if this is happening?
"Think of all the people out there who hate my mom," Bristol said last night in an interview with E! News. "Why don't we talk about that?
"It can work both ways with me being Sarah Palin's daughter."
This is a good point, Bristol. So let's talk about that. Yes, it could work both ways -- but if you understand why it doesn't, at least at the stages of the competition thus far, you'll learn something important about politics: in an election with many competitors, the least popular choice often won't be eliminated because people split their votes among the alternatives.
Now those of us who "hate your Mom" -- and let's be clear, most of us don't wish your Mom pain or death or anything like that, but we just want her kept away from being able to influence public policy and culture, sort of like wanting to keep animal feces out of the food supply for the public good -- probably do outnumber her fans enormously, although perhaps not among the people who can still bear to watch DWTS this year. (This presumes that all of the people voting for you are actually watching the show rather than just reacting to websites and radio announcers, which I doubt.) Here's a cold fact for you: if you have one vote more than 25% of the votes behind you, there is literally no way that those who "hate your Mom" can keep you from being one of the top three contestants chosen out of four to make the finals. It is mathematically impossible.
This is important, so let me explain: if everyone wants to vote for Jennifer Grey to beat you, then Kyle and Brandy have no votes and you beat them easily. The voting system based on tossing out the person with the fewest votes every round favors a coherent minority that casts one more than {1/N} of the votes, where "N" is the number of candidates competing in that round. It's not until "N" gets smaller -- down to 3, or certainly down to 2 -- that a coherent minority can't game the system by voting for their candidate. We're not there yet.
This is amplified when each person can vote more than once -- rewarding "voter intensity" -- and even more so when voting costs money -- rewarding those with greater resources and fewer obstacles to participation. (Like, for example, those who have an internet connection to vote on site -- or who are willing to cast their votes on several different computers. That's unethical, but ... well, ask your Mom what she thinks of it.) This is why Republicans tend to outperform their actual level of public support in elections.
This:
Bristol, 20, has been skewered all season for her flawed foot work and lack of chemistry with partner Mark Ballas.
doesn't matter to the people who are voting for you. It should matter, if this is about talent (including dexterity, charm, and style) rather than personality. But it doesn't matter to those wanting to make a political point.
This next bit is sort of sweet, and part of why you seem salvageable as a human being.
But now, the usually demure single mom insists she is not the beneficiary of some Tea Party conspiracy and has earned the right to be among the final four couples dancing.
"I work my butt off here," she said. "I rehearse every day. I am totally out of my element here. I think I deserve to be here."
That first sentence isn't a quote, so I can't hold it against you. You have no way of knowing that you're not the beneficiary of "some Tea Party conspiracy" -- they wouldn't tell you about it, Bristol -- but in any event I don't have to think that this is being planned from Grover Norquist's bathtub-shaped dungeon. You're the beneficiary of a popular movement -- and there's nothing wrong with that per se -- that (and there is something wrong with this) is interested in political advantage at the expense of merit.
(And, by the way, there's is no "right" to be among the final four -- or three -- couples dancing. Ask the people who have lost to you along the way. Ask poor Brandy. There is justice, but there is no "right" to a just share of the popular vote.)
But the part that does quote you plucks at my heartstrings a bit.
Yes (let's presume), you work your butt off, you rehearse every day. Good for you. That doesn't mean you should win. But if you do believe that it means you should, in the interest of justice, be evaluated fairly, then congratulations -- you're on your way to becoming a Democrat. We'd love it if people really did get rewarded based on how hard they work. By contrast, that would be your Mom's greatest fear.
Yes, you're "totally out of your element" -- and I applaud you, sincerely, for being willing to try it anyway. It's admirable! But it doesn't mean that you "deserve to be" in the finals. That is supposed to be a matter of how good you are, not how much of an undeserved leg up you get.
Last night, with her famous mother and father looking on from the audience, Palin got her best scores of the season with a mysterious waltz and sexy, leg-baring paso doble.
"This is what we've been asking you for," judge Carrie Ann Inaba told her. "You came out of your shell and nailed."
Bristol, Carrie Ann Inaba is being paid by ABC. She wants to keep her job. It's an embarrassment for the network if an incompetent contestant doesn't merely make it further into the competition then they should -- go look up "Sanjaya Malakar" -- but actually makes it into the finals. ABC can't or won't change the votes, so they have to get everyone to make believe (in public, at least) that you're a really competent dancer. That's a shame; you may recall that "The Emperor's New Clothes" didn't end well. It would be so much better if they celebrated you for what you should justly be proud of: that you went into an unfamiliar field, worked hard, improved, and had fun. We Democrats admire that. Tea Partiers call it a coddling, "everyone gets a trophy" mentality. But your having done this, Bristol, that's its own reward. Realize that, and you'll know that your winning for Mom's greater glory doesn't matter -- and in fact winning unjustly would be an embarrassment.
"I'm not a fake," Palin said on the show, indicating for the first time how much she wanted to make it to the finals next week. "People can relate to me because I'm real -- not Hollywood."
I feel for you, Bristol. Here's the truth: you would not be where you are right now if your name were Bristol Murkowski. (Well, maybe you would if it were an Alaskan contest, but it wouldn't help if you were Bristol Smith.) Other people as "not fake" as you have been left in your wake. You're not "Hollywood," you're "Washington." (Or, to put it in Alaska terms, you're not only "Juno," you're "Juneau.") People aren't "relating to you," they're paying tribute to your Mom. Don't get played, young miss, because it's just going to get worse until you establish your true independence. I wish you good luck in that -- and in life.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to have a word with someone else.
(3) Dear Carol Costello:
You, CNN's Carol Costello, are sounding a bit like a political reporter, and I don't mean that in a nice way. At least in your case it's relatively mild and benign. So, no offense intended, but let's see what we can learn from your column. (Again, the above Fair Use exception applies, but Editors are welcome to intercede.)
If Bristol Palin's presence on "Dancing with the Stars" proved anything, it showed how partisan we've become.
Some believe the only reason she remained on the show for so long is because of a Tea Party or Republican conspiracy. Seneca Doane wrote on the liberal DailyKos.com: "She (Bristol Palin) is evidently clearly inferior to the other contestants, but Sarah Palin fans keep on voting her in not because of her greater talent but as a tribute to her grifter mom. Evidently, they're making a political point."
Well, Carol, if I may call you that, you're stacking the deck a little. I wouldn't say that it's the only reason that she stayed on the show this long. There's the long-term problem of lead in the drinking water, and of course there's no accounting for taste. I would say that it's the decisive reason, unless you think that a "Bristol Non-Palin" would be doing as well. Go ahead and venture an opinion on that; it's your credibility to spend.
Bristol and her dance partner Mark Ballas insist that's not true. Ballas insists, "I've had loads of people come up to me, especially out here in LA and say I’m 100% Democrat, but I vote for you guys every week - because I have a normal life, I’m a normal family. I come home to my normal TV set and tune in and I think to myself if I was on that show that's exactly how I would be and I enjoy watching the journey and it's inspiring."
Maybe that happens. I was trained as a social scientist, though, and we learned to distrust anecdotes. I'm not calling Mark Ballas a liar; I'm saying that perhaps the people who are willing to come up to him and express their fawning opinions are not representative of the population of "100% Democrats," let alone "normal" people. Honestly, in what other talent show you can think of has the gutty-but-unqualified -- by whatever standard you can name -- contestant beaten the just-as-gutty-but-qualified one?
Seriously, in talent shows, people may vote on beauty and they may vote on charm and they may vote on merit, but none of those explain why Bristol would leave her competitors in the dust. Meanwhile, all we have to do to believe that politics plays a substantial role in this is to take the people promoting Bristol Palin at their word.
The funny thing – or the sad thing – is just how much we've politicized everything in country. The headline in "The Hollywood Reporter" describes "The Reign of Right-Wing Primetime." In a new study, media research company Experian Simmons came up with a list of shows favored by Republicans and by Democrats. Among the shows Republicans watch: “Dancing with the Stars,” “Modern Family,” and “Big Bang Theory.” Democrats apparently watch shows about "damaged characters" like “Mad Men,” “30 Rock” and “Dexter” – all shows with much lower ratings. Republicans it seems are more devoted to their favorites and watch in greater numbers.
You're misreading the data a bit -- but to be fair, the Hollywood Reporter table of favorites is misleading. It seems like it's the top 15 for each, but it's not. Meanwhile, the study's point -- that Republicans tend to watch more as herd animals while Democrats tend to watch less famous and more challenging shows -- appears valid. This isn't "politicizing"; it's recognizing a truth about our society. Maybe Republicans and Democrats do think -- and appreciate art -- differently. If so, isn't this worth knowing? You wouldn't hesitate to note that the genders or races/ethnicities or age groups do so -- why not take this insight into the political brain?
This supposed partisan divide in TV viewing habits has erupted over Bristol Palin. Kim Serafin, who worked in politics with Rudy Giuliani and is now senior editor of In Touch Weekly, put it this way: "It's kind of funny but not entirely surprising. Because people do politicize everything. They politicize TV shows, they politicize movies, they politicize celebrities. Everything that people do these days is politicized."
OK, Carol, I have to speak up here because it's my pseudonym you've attached to an article about how people "politicize everything." Who did the politicization here? Is it the people who have tried to whip the vote for Bristol Palin to strike a blow for her Mom against the "elites." (You know us "elites": we're the people who think that talent competitions should be judged on talent and that someone who winks at a talent show's judge while playing the flute and thus loses the train of the music -- as Bristol's Mom famously did --
did not do as good of a job as someone who played well the whole way through?)
You've set up something we like to call a "false equivalence": that recognizing that someone else is "politicizing" something is itself "politicizing" it. That's flat wrong. Here would be me "politicizing" the event: if I said that people should vote against Bristol Palin despite her being the most talented person in the competition. However, I wouldn't do that; I'd accept that Sarah Palin had raised a talented daughter and brush it aside. But recognizing that others are politicizing an event is just -- well, it's "reporting." It's "understanding the world." It's not suspect. It doesn't balance out an attack on the notion of merit and talent itself.
Gut check: Many of us expect our politicians to reach across the aisle – but do we really mean that? We're so partisan there are Republican and Democratic TV shows – can't we just enjoy the show?
We are enjoying the show, Carol! And, to be fair, Republicans who like less morally complex material that comforts rather than challenges are enjoying their shows too! What is interesting -- and important -- is that these different approaches to art may be (and I think are) reflected in approaches to politics, which is critical in a democracy where candidates are sold like soap. People who want the usually morally unambiguous NCIS, with its celebration of machismo and inerrant judgment of government cops -- mixed in with a few softer and quirkier characters, often the butts of jokes, to give the broader audience someone to root for -- are thinking about life differently that those who enjoy -- hell, we don't even have to invoke The Wire, we can discuss The Closer. This is a preference for simple solutions rather than confronting complexities, for being saved by a powerful Daddy rather than struggling through on our own.
Political differences in how people with different ideologies think are real. They determine elections, and elections in turn determine the fate of the country and of the world. Recognizing them, especially if they can be backed up with verifiable research rather than confident but unsupported assertions, is good.
Sarah Palin is now political royalty. Notoriously, when the royals would go hunting, the gameskeepers would ensure that there were plenty of partridges planted in the bushes, perhaps some subtly hobbled game for the princes to find and easily shoot, so that they would appear to be great hunters. But that didn't make them great hunters anymore than winning on DWTS would make Bristol Palin a great dancer. The progressive movement is standing against the new Gilded Age, where success comes to those already successful and those who will cater to them. We don't do this out of fealty to party, but out of respect for truth, merit, reality.
I don't think that the world is doomed if Bristol Palin wins DWTS next week with, say, 34% of the vote to 33% each for Jennifer and Kyle. As I said in my previous diary, I think that for people who believe in merit and talent -- and I'd like to believe that that's the majority of the country -- this will be a sort of a wake-up call. We'll be employing this metaphor -- "it's like when Bristol Palin won on Dancing With the Stars even though she was the least talented" -- repeatedly in the years to come. But we won't do that because we're trying to politicize the world. We'll do it because the world already is politicized -- because too many are, in Ann Richards's phrase, "born on third base and think they've hit a triple" -- and our job as Democrats is to get people to recognize what's in front of their noses.
Bristol Palin's success may make that a bit harder in the short run -- as it rejects reasonable evaluation criteria like style and grace and dexterity and creativity and charm and enthusiasm and substitutes who has a Mom whom we'd like to support politically as the key to victory -- but it may make it easier in the long term. Delusions, about who can dance and about who can govern, can only last so long before they break down. There's nothing admirable in refusing to forthrightly call delusions what they are.