I plan on asking a question of undecided, independent, and low-information voters next year, in 2012, for the rest of the decade, and however long the answer is likely to be "yes" and the impact is likely to be positive.
"Remember when Bristol Palin almost won on Dancing With the Stars?"
"It was crazy; I remember that much," I'll hear. "Yeah," I'll say, "and what was really crazy about it was ...."
I wrote one diary the Sunday before Bristol Palin made the finals and one the Wednesday afterwards. This diary is the third and (I expect) last in the series. It discusses how we can use this event, now burned into public consciousness, to help fight the radical right-wing in the future.
Bristol Palin's almost winning on DWTS mattered, more so than most stories here that should matter more.
It matters because it will help us connect with voters. I'll explain how.
First of all, I don't know if there really were any credible threats on Bristol's life, as trumpeted by TMZ and the Free Republic -- in fact, I really doubt it -- but if there were threats I (and I'm sure you) unequivocally condemn them. (Shooting your TV is OK, though, if you don't threaten anyone.)
That said, I am not slamming Bristol Palin in this diary, nor did I intend to do so in the others. In the second diary, some commenters disagreed with that choice. I think Bristol is a pretty normal girl for her age -- which is an accomplishment, given her family and its circumstances -- who has taken the same opportunities most of us would have taken given her background, her skills, her circumstances, and the doors opened for her. I don't admire it -- I'd like to think that if I were a 20-year-old woman rather than a 50-year-old man I'd have made different choices -- but I realize that I may well be fooling myself. Bristol's Mom has gotten her gigs and suppressed her public shame. That's got to be pretty tempting. And if she's immature -- well, that may be because she's immature. Others may flame away at her, on obvious grounds, but my intention here is not to make fun of her but to determine what messaging lessons we can distill from her time on DWTS.
Preface:
The overarching point, which I suspect that some people resist because it shouldn't be true and they don't want it to be true, is that people cared about what was going on with Bristol on DWTS a lot more than they care about the sort of things we activists care about. My diary from yesterday addressed, in part, the GOP blocking ratification of the START treaty. I estimate (and no, I have no hard data) that the horrible truth is that Americans were more aware of Bristol on DWTS than they are the START treaty, that collectively they care more about Bristol than START (even if they'd profess otherwise), and that they will remember Bristol on DWTS far longer than they care about whatever happens with the START treaty.
The failure to ratify START is, in my opinion, a greater indictment of the Republican party than anything involving Bristol on DWTS. But it's not a "door-opener." Caring about START does not foster bonding with lots of voters; it fosters eyes glazing over and resentment that someone else has an opinion about something that the voter finds difficult and annoying. Arguing with at least some voters about START carries a subtext -- "I understand these complex issues and if you were smart you would too" -- that leads to resentment. Republicans avoid this, choosing simplistic and accessible "high concept" approaches to issues they discuss with the general public, and that's one reason that they win.
There's an implicit lesson in that that I stubbornly reject. I don't recommend "dumbing down" our discourse with the electorate. But, when an event comes along that people care about, that they can readily understand, and that leads them to agree with Democratic principles, then I say GRAB IT AND HOLD ON, because it may pay us dividends for many years.
We need to connect with voters. No reasonably useful tool should be disdained.
"Bristol on Dancing With the Stars" -- the #1 show in the U.S. for the past months -- is such an event. Whether or not you find discussing it to be beneath your personal dignity, we as a party should keep talking about it to connect to voters, because they'll appreciate the lessons it teaches. Here's a dozen-and-a-half reasons why:
Why Bristol Palin on Dancing With the Stars Mattered Politically -- and Will Continue to Matter:
(1) The prospect of her winning scared people
You don't have to look at political sites to recognize this; in fact, it's probably better if you don't. Look at Twitter, look at non-political sites, fan sites, discussion sites that had nothing to do with DWTS but where this event intruded on discussion nonetheless. The notion that this relatively untalented young woman could win a talent competition that its fans cared about outraged people. People were sickened that Bristol might win because the people who actually took the outcome seriously, rather than as a joke or political statement, would be swamped by those who didn't care. The audience for the final results episode was huge; people followed it like the Super Bowl or (for us) election returns, needing to know the result in real time, invested in the outcome.
How is this useful? First, it supports the arguments above. Second, in our future discussions with voters who care about the topic, we can ask people to to imagine having that same feeling on a future election night -- when a Bristol might knock off a talented Brandy, even if she couldn't later beat a Jennifer and Kyle.
(2) It was an example of how the genie can get out of the bottle
ABC was publicly thrilled at its high ratings, even as the show's executive producer admitted as early as November 4 that it was possible that the votes were being gamed for political reasons. It tried to exude calm and control. However, as noted in this wonderful diary from The Red Phone Is Ringing, ABC was actually terrified that Bristol would win, and not only because it would undermine the show's status as a talent competition:
“Another problem the producers foresee is that after Bristol wins no one in Hollywood will ever want to be on the show again,” an ABC source says. “Why would a real star want to compete and lose against someone like Christine O’Donnell or Levi Johnston. It’s humiliating. The producers know they are in big trouble for sure.”
How is this useful? "People may think that they can control Palin and her fans, but they are loose cannons. The radicals end up poisoning the people that think that they're using them, then the lunatics end up controlling the asylum. Do we want that to happen in the White House?"
(3) Don't trust supposedly objective judges
ABC's judges were continually rating Bristol well above what she deserved -- even as she kept coming in last relative to her competition -- because they didn't want to alienate their viewers who supported her (and because ABC did not want to admit that a competitor could win its dance competition with so little talent.) Supposedly objective experts will say what they think they're supposed to say if they think their paycheck depends on it.
This is a digression, I know, but you may enjoy reading what a real impartial judge of talent had to say about Bristol just after she knocked Brandy out of competition:
ROBERT SIEGEL (OF NPR): We thought that we would get an outside opinion of last night's result from internationally acclaimed ballroom dancer and dance instructor Pierre Dulaine. Welcome to the program.
Mr. PIERRE DULAINE (Ballroom Dancer and Dance Instructor): Thank you very much. Nice to be here.
SIEGEL: I should say that Mr. Dulaine joins us from New York. You watched the results, where were you and what was your immediate reaction to the results?
Mr. DULAINE: Well, I was at home, actually, watching television and I was so shocked. My words were: unbelievable.
SIEGEL: You were moved, actually, to email your dance instructors?
Mr. DULAINE: Yes. We have many, many sites that do our work, you know, for the children, and I emailed everybody. I said, unbelievable. Bristol Palin in, I just can't believe it.
SIEGEL: To a trained eye you would say it was unquestionable that Brandi had danced better?
Mr. DULAINE: Much, much, much better. With all due respect to Ms. Palin, I think she has done wonderful by staying in so many weeks and learning everything she learned, and she certainly improved from where she started. But as she said herself, she's not a dancer.
SIEGEL: As a dance instructor, what are you talking about? What are you seeing that says to you, vote that woman off the show?
Mr. DULAINE: Basically, I mean, she followed her partner quite nicely enough, I suppose, but her shoulders were up. She had a, excuse my expression now, I'm being very honest here, dull face many times. Smiling was hard for her. Her technique was not good at all. She just walked across the stage with the steps that were given to her, with difficulty. And certainly for me, not pleasant to watch, when you compare it to the other two ladies.
SIEGEL: You teach kids how to dance, and I wonder if you could give Bristol Palin some advice, since she's a relative newcomer to all this, and since she's going to be in the final anyway, what would you say?
Mr. DULAINE: If she does get through to be a winner, then I would be horrified. That, I would be even more horrified than last night. But what I would tell her to do, I suppose, is to try and relax. Her shoulders are up in her ears and to smile a bit more, to be natural about it. At the moment, just go for it, just enjoy it, just live the last few moments and, you know, go on.
OK, back to the issue I raised:
How is this useful? As is true with the judges and Bristol, so with the media pundits and Sarah. (Or Sharron, or Christine....) "You can't trust what people who don't want to alienate her fans say about her. Remember that Bristol Palin got decent ratings from the judges even when she was one of the worst dancers of her season."
(4) It showed how the media misreads the public and then lies about it
Courtesy of a Washington Post story from the day before the final result, enjoy this quote from DWTS Executive Producer Conrad Green, who is shocked, shocked, that politicization might be occurring on his show.
"I had no reasons to believe this would happen," Green told the TV Column late last week of the kerfuffle that has erupted over Bristol Palin, who is the weakest dancer in the competition according to the scores she's receiving from the show's professional ballroom dance judges but who has outlasted far more accomplished performers in this season's competition.
"It's been illuminating," Green said, adding: "A lot of this is timing - it's a particularly bad time in American politics. I love that people are being passionate but sad so many people are angry. . . . I don't want to anger our audience."
"That was never my intention" in casting Bristol on the show, he added, exuding sadness.
Take away Bristol's family name and her journey on the show is similar to that of underdogs who have been unlikely survivors in seasons past, Green insisted. "But this year "everybody got a bit mad about it."
Oh, indeed.
How is this useful? Any vivid example of the media bending over to please conservatives and then lying about it is a good example. And I can't read this without laughing out loud -- can you?
(5) It was an example of how the media plumps a political celebrity -- Sarah, not Bristol.
ABC gave Sarah Palin all sorts of positive air time as part of Bristol's "candidacy." Sarah's fans kept Bristol going to keep Sarah's visibility high; even Bristol said that her win would be a "big middle finger" to the public. You wouldn't be seeing such fawning treatment of Dennis Kucinich if his wife were the one nearing the finals of the show.
How is this useful? The media is in the bag for conservative Republicans because they're afraid of their vicious fans. We can't trust the media when it fawns over Republicans. Our antennae should be up.
(6) It was an example of how the right-wing faux-populist faux-libertarians value political advantage over merit.
To me, this is one of the most important. Dancing With the Stars was supposedly a show where stars would dance and people would judge whose dancing -- which includes charm and personality as well as footwork and hip action -- they liked best. In other words, it was about merit -- even if was a kind of merit that doesn't matter very much outside of the ballroom. But the teabaggers did not care at all about merit -- the concept of merit was if anything an inconvenience to circumvent. They cared about power -- and how this could help Queen Sarah, even if by all rights a Bristol victory should have been a complete embarrassment. Many voters didn't even watch the show: what Bristol actually did didn't matter to their evaluation of her.
How is this useful? "Sarah Palin governs like Bristol Palin dances, but her fans didn't care -- who does the best job didn't matter to them at all. All they care about is glory, not good government."
(7) It was an example of how these same forces justify lying and cheating based on supposed Democratic fraud.
In a Washington Post story from the day before the final result, we saw this from Hillbuzz.org blogger Kevin DuJan:
"The real aim of Bristol's Pistols: to expose Democratic hypocrisy on voter fraud and ask why the media is so obsessed with the voting on a reality show but doesn't care about Leftist tampering with actual elections.
"The Left is angry whenever I teach conservatives the tricks the Left consistently employs against Republicans. . . . The media and the Left are engraged [sic] right now because 'Bristol's Pistols,' as they are calling us, have been creatively and energetically voting for her on a reality TV show. It's what I call 'Voting like a Democrat' . . . voting early . . . voting often . . . voting as cartoon characters . . . voting under aliases . . . ," DuJan wrote.
How is this useful? "When conservative bloggers were encouraging people to cheat in voting for Bristol, they justified it as supposed retaliation for Democratic cheating in real elections -- except that the charges they made were untrue and often impossible. Yet this gave Republicans permission to break the rules -- even while Democrats did not."
(8) It was an instructive lesson about how voting systems work.
I covered this in my previous diary. The main idea is that when there are many candidates, a fringe candidate with a devoted following can continue to advance even with a small percentage of the vote.
How is this useful? It's a way to teach people about a single transferable vote and other preferential voting systems using an example that they actually care about.
(9) It was particularly instructive about how the mainstream electorate can get caught napping (if not activated) and can squash the radical right (once energized.)
The difference between Brandy getting booted in the semis and Bristol coming in last in the finals -- after the public got excited and agitated about the impending injustice -- is very clear.
How is this useful? It's a great argument that people can understand about the importance of GOTV and voter activation generally. Bristol Palin could probably be elected a Judge in Texas or a school board member in most states, flying under the radar until she shows up in the winner's circle with a smile and no idea of what she's doing there.
(10) It was an example of how powers-that-be lie about the security of voting systems
Again from Executive Producer Conrad Green in the WaPo article linked above:
Green wants viewers to know the show's security system is weeding out all those votes being cast for Bristol overnight through bogus e-mail addresses.
"I'm confident we're able to spot if people are trying to game the system," he said Friday in response to commenters on the conservative blog Hillbuzz.org, claiming they had figured out how to game ABC's online voting system by creating fake e-mail addresses. One person claimed to have voted for Bristol 300 times that way in just three hours.
"You would have to be a rather strange person to sit up all night doing that," Green said dismissively.
"Confident," is he? Seems to be "lying," doesn't he? Remember the 1950s quiz show scandals? I think it's time to ask Conrad Green to testify about this in front of Congress. Let the Republicans block it -- that just makes it better! As for the system not having to worry about "rather strange persons ... sitting up all night," well, let's just skip to:
How is this useful? The "let them eat chad" dismissiveness of legitimate concerns about fair voting is delicious, especially the way it works hand in hand with Republican admitted willingness to cheat.
(11) It felt so good when Bristol lost.
People will understand this. Truth prevailed! DWTS may not be a big deal -- only the #1 rated show in the country during the weeks it was broadcast -- but as The Red Phone Is Ringing said in his diary:
I think they are missing a huge point that Americans don't like ballot-box stuffing and they don't like the obvious, inherent unfairness of the consistently worst dancer winning a dancing competition!
How is this useful? By rejecting the pull of brainless grifter celebrity politics, voters can have that good feeling back again. We are on the side of the angels, after all. Among other things, we're on the side of poor Brandy, who wuz robbed. (Think that people don't remember that? Hell, I can tell you about calls in sports games from when I was a kid 40 years ago that still rankle. What people love sticks with them more than the likes of political chicanery.)
(12) Media treatment of Bristol on DWTS was rife with false equivalency
When the media recognized a controversy at all, it took the form of "liberals say conservatives are perverting the system and conservatives say that liberals are." But there's no evidence that liberals were doing anything wrong. Conservatives started this benighted movement and liberals criticized it. When liberals said to vote for Jennifer Grey, it wasn't "to beat Bristol" for the sake of it, it was to see the most deserving candidate win. The media refused to distinguish between wanting to see merit prevail and wanting to see political advantage triumph.
How is this useful? Anything that helps voters understand the speciousness and dangers of this sort of false equivalency is good.
(13) Media makes fun of liberals for noticing what the media says is fact.
I happened to have been (though not identified by name) the target of a truly inspired juxtaposition by the Washington Post's critic Lisa de Moraes on this topic. See if you can spot the contradiction:
But already, the survival of America's top "teen advocate" to this week's semifinals round has some accusing that social-networking conservatives have been voting for her mother, not her.
"By all means, let the Republicans conspire to fix this meaningless election. . . . If Bristol Palin wins, while the judges gag at her weak performances, then finally, we'll be able to explain politics to the apolitical using concepts that they can understand!" the liberal blog the Daily Kos boohooed last week.
Since the latest edition of the show debuted in September, political Web sites promoting Sarah Palin's career have been getting out the vote for Bristol, including instructions on how to cast multiple votes via telephone, text message or online for hours after each Monday's performance show. "She's in the final four. Congratulations Bristol," read the home page of Conservatives4Palin.com, which has every week instructed followers how and when to cast multiple votes for their gal's daughter.
"Boohooed," she wrote. Lisa, Lisa, Lisa. I said that the Republicans were trying to fix the election -- and a paragraph later you provide proof! If it's "explaining politics to the apolitical" -- please note that qualification -- in terms that they can understand is what you don't like, well, start reading a reputable daily newspaper to see why it would be useful.
How is this useful? It helps the apolitical -- people who don't follow or care about politics, yet somehow often vote based on gut feelings and manipulated understandings -- see how the media considers complaining about corruption to be worse then corruption, because it's whiny or strident. Boohoo.
I'll end with a piece from NPR that was published on the first day of the finale, The Non-Scandal Of Bristol Palin's 'Dancing With The Stars' Success by Linda Holmes, from which I'll derive multiple lessons. I'll post most of the article and pick it apart in a way that I believe comports with Fair Use rules for criticism.
(14) Conservative elites think that people are fools for expecting fairness.
Bristol Palin was not one of the three best dancers of the season. Bristol Palin was probably not one of the six best dancers of the season. Bristol Palin might have been one of the three worst dancers of the season. It's absolutely true, based on my experience with this show (which, for purely professional reasons, is extensive), that it's pretty rare to survive a dance where, at times, you simply stop dancing. That will usually do you in, if not then, then soon thereafter.
So far, so good.
But the accusations of "cheating" (at Jezebel, for instance) ring hollow to me, because there's nothing about using invalid e-mail addresses (which is the accusation) that is remotely sophisticated enough to surprise anyone who follows this sort of thing.
OK, Ms. Holmes, stop right there. Because cheating is not a surprise, complaints about cheating "ring hollow"? Did you know that Conrad Green said that he was "confident" that there was no cheating?
Internet sites that use e-mail addresses for any kind of public opinion or public voting purposes have had to decide whether to validate those addresses (that is, make sure they're real) since the Internet was in diapers; if ABC doesn't validate them, it's because it doesn't care enough to validate them. That's part of the system the network chose, and the reason is that it doesn't really matter how they run the voting system, because one kind of popularity contest (allotting power to the depth of people's devotion to you by allowing multiple votes) doesn't necessarily have any more "integrity" than any other kind of popularity contest (limited votes per person, with validated e-mail addresses).
It doesn't? Ms. Holmes, people bragged about voting despite not having watched the show! Is that so "routine" that it doesn't surprise you? The complaint is that this wasn't even about the popularity of her contestant, but the popularity of her Mom, Mama Grifty. Do you think that the systems are truly equivalent?
How is this useful? Well, it's ugly and demeaning and (whatever Ms. Holmes's actual ideology and registration) it's Republican to the core. Why wouldn't we talk it up?
(15) Conservative elites try to get people to confuse caprice with corruption.
As for people being all agitated over the fact that Brandy, a much better dancer than Bristol Palin, was booted when she stayed around? Come on. This show has never, ever, ever been about who's the best dancer. Going all the way back to the show's very first season, when General Hospital's Kelly Monaco beat John O'Hurley (Seinfeld's J. Peterman), it's been clear that you can often get farther with the right kinds of fans than with the best dancing. The NFL's Jerry Rice wasn't the second-best dancer of the second season, but he finished as the runner-up, because people liked him. The voting part of the show is a popularity contest, has never claimed to be otherwise, and can't really be forced to be otherwise. There's a reason obscure people with no name recognition have such an uphill battle, and it's not because obscurity interferes with your dancing.
Great, let's talk about Jerry Rice. (I didn't watch that season, nor the first one.) What she's saying is that people vote on the basis of intangibles like charm rather than physical performance. And, within bounds, she's right that there's nothing wrong with that: presentation is part of performance. But isn't it instructive what she overlooked here?
Unlike with Kelly Monaco or Jerry Rice, people were not voting for Bristol because of anything they liked about her. Hell, to vote for Jerry Rice based on charm, at least you had to watch the show and be charmed by him. These voters -- many of whom were not watching the show -- were voting to support Bristol's Mom in the political rather than entertainment sphere. That was not voting capriciously -- it was corruptly allowing politics to intrude on what was supposed to be a non-political haven.
How is this useful? Conservatives are blind to corruption. They see politics as just another sport, merit be damned.
(16) Conservatives dismiss concerns about corruption of political process without evidence.
This particular brouhaha is a whole lot of nothing. Trying to outsmart voting systems by being willing to sit for two hours and devote yourself to the task is not specific to Bristol Palin or to people of any particular political stripe, and the fact that a bunch of message boards are taking credit for changing the result doesn't mean they're actually doing it. Voting system treachery and silly and exaggerated credit-taking are practically an Olympic sport among fans of American Idol, for instance, and bragging rights are paramount.
In fact, if you followed Idol fandom long enough, you'd find people on message boards claiming that they personally sent a contestant on to the following week by sending an extra five votes via text message after they learned to brush their teeth with their toes to keep their hands free. If there are two things superfans are good at, those things are (1) overestimating their ability to make anything happen and (2) later overestimating the degree to which they've made anything happen.
Without knowing what the voting margins are like and how many votes have come in for all the different contestants in all the different platforms, it's very hard to reach any sort of a conclusion about whether power voting has anything to do with why Palin has stayed, or whether she's just another person (among many) whose personal story and built-in fanbase are keeping her in the game longer than her talent would suggest she should be there.
How is this useful? Haven't you heard this same sort of argument applied to election fraud in real elections? "Just because voting machines could be tampered with doesn't mean they are, and without evidence I'm willing to dismiss the possibility as sour grapes. That Bristol beat Brandy (or that Blacks were purged from the voting rolls in Florida 2000) isn't actual evidence of a problem -- let's move on." Voters should resent this sort of malarkey; this sort of dismissiveness may help them see it for what it is.
(17) Conservatives think that people who take ethics (and, in larger contexts, laws) seriously are being suckers.
And unhappiness about the fact that Palin's mother has political followers who are lending her their support has to be addressed to the casting decision to put someone on the show whose only claim to "stardom" is her relationship to her mother's political career. Once that decision was made, the fact that it played out as everyone knew it would? Well, that's hardly her fault. Had Tom DeLay not broken his feet a couple of seasons back, which forced him to drop out, his political supporters would have been voting for him, too. Political figures bring political fans, just like soap stars bring soap fans and football players bring football fans.
Yes, people who like Bristol Palin are trying to find ways to play around with the voting system to keep her around. This is what people do. People who like Bristol Palin, people who like Adam Lambert, people who want to make an online poll say Howard Stern is the sexiest man alive. Provide an online voting system; people try to game it, if they care enough. As the producer of the show has pointed out, as long as everyone has the same opportunity to be voted for in the same ways by the same people if those people are persistent enough, what does the show really care? It already allows five votes per person; who cares if it allows five or 200? This wasn't the discovery of a highly advanced security hole; this was using made-up e-mail addresses.
How is this useful? "They think you're a sucker if you take ethics seriously, that nothing should constrain you but the letter of the law. This is how they justified the pillaging on Wall Street. And then they go past the law, saying 'fraud is the norm, so get used to it.' They resent being investigated and freak out at the possibility being punished. When a party acts that way, you have to expect its scum to float to the top."
Seventeen is such an awkward number, so I'll add one more in closing:
(18) Why will Bristol on DWTS matter? Because we'll say it does!
Remember that unnamed Republican who told Suskind that Republicans "make their own reality"? Well, we can do that too -- but we can base our reality on actual reality rather than lies.
Republicans would probably like to stop talking about Bristol on DWTS now, thanks. They know that it doesn't make them look good. If the Romneyfied party establishment trots it out again, it may simply be for their own aims of tarring Sarah Palin in the 2012 primaries. (As I hope is clear, I have my sights set on bigger game.)
Well, if it hurts them, then it's probably something worth reminding the public about. This was an ugly episode that ended in a triumph -- not for Democrats, but for viewers who respect talent -- when Bristol was defeated despite the efforts of the lunatic right fringe. We bonded with the public here. We should not be afraid to remind them of it -- of who were are and of who our opponents are when they take off the mask.
How is this useful? It might help us win elections -- and, as Republicans know, that matters.