Last week I wrote in a comment that with the advent of Sarah Palin, we are witnessing the "American Idolization" of American Politics. A sort of faux reality where someone with mediocre talent is presented in a context in which the audience thinks she or he is a real superstar.
I wrote:
This is the age of American Idol where a mediocre singer can be elevated to his or her own record deal. Where people care more about the exploits of Brittany Spears and Lindsay Lohan than they do about the Iraq War. My husband and I were just explaining to our kids that when we grew up in the 60s and 70s, we watched the war on the evening news every night. The kids couldn't picture it.
I guess what I'm saying is that we do live in a culture that seems to be more about personality and celebrity than substance and as much as I agree with you that we should always try to steer the conversation toward substance, a huge portion of the population has had its brains numbed by years of People, Us, Celebrity Life and Style, Entertainment Tonight, American Idol and dozens of reality shows.
http://www.dailykos.com/...
When my older daughter was in 2nd grade, she came home one day and said "I'm the only kid in the second grade who is not allowed to watch American Idol and it's not fair." I made a few phone calls and confirmed that she was not in fact the only kid in the second grade who was not allowed to watch American Idol and then I decided to let her watch it anyway. Of course, rather than just letting her watch it, I had to sit next to her and explain that I thought that there was something wrong in our country when we were at war in Iraq and even though it was an unpopular war, rather than protesting, millions of Americans were sitting in their living rooms being sucked into the spectacle of not-particularly-talented singers performing and then getting to vote on their performances.
I think that partly explains the Sarah Palin phenomenon. I think that the problems facing our country right now are so vast and seemingly insurmountable that a good chunk of our fellow citizens are being sucked into the Sarah Palin amateur talent hour rather than listening to the grown ups in this campaign -- Senators Obama and Biden -- who are trying to talk about these issues (the economy, health care, the energy crisis, education, our fallen standing in the world community, our falling behind China and India in terms of technological innovation) as well as possible solutions. And apparently I'm not alone. Roger Ebert has a great column up in the Chicago Sun Times entitled "Sarah Palin: The American Idol Candidate." Ebert writes:
I think I might be able to explain some of Sarah Palin's appeal. She's the "American Idol" candidate. Consider. What defines an "American Idol" finalist? They're good-looking, work well on television, have a sunny personality, are fierce competitors, and so talented, why, they're darned near the real thing. There's a reason "American Idol" gets such high ratings. People identify with the contestants. They think, Hey, that could be me up there on that show!
My problem is, I don't want to be up there. I don't want a vice president who is darned near good enough. I want a vice president who is better, wiser, well-traveled, has met world leaders, who three months ago had an opinion on Iraq. Someone who doesn't repeat bald- faced lies about earmarks and the Bridge to Nowhere. Someone who doesn't appoint Alaskan politicians to "study" global warming, because, hello! It has been studied. The returns are convincing enough that John McCain and Barack Obama are darned near in agreement.
Ebert's column has some other gems such as:
I would also want someone who didn't make a teeny little sneer when referring to "people who go to the Ivy League." When I was a teen I dreamed of going to Harvard, but my dad, an electrician, told me, "Boy, we don't have the money. Thank your lucky stars you were born in Urbana and can go to the University of Illinois right here in town." So I did, very happily. Although Palin gets laughs when she mentions the "elite" Ivy League, she sure did attend the heck out of college.
Five different schools in six years. What was that about?
http://www.suntimes.com/...
Fred Goldring, an entertainment lawyer based in L.A. (so he should know what he's talking about in this context) has a great column up on HuffPo entitled "American Idolatry and Sarah Palin."
He likens Palin to a contestant on American Idol who, rather than having to go through the audition and preliminary rounds, is "handpicked as the winner by the show's 'producers' just before the big final show was about to air," and writes that
"[w]ith this 'free pass' in her hand, our newest Idol avoided the gauntlet of having to consistently perform, live and under intense pressure, at a high level, without mistakes, week in, week out, pitted side-by-side against the other contestants over the course of a long season and under the critical gaze of a panel of judges and the TV-watching world. After her coronation and a hasty introduction to a somewhat bewildered audience, our new Idol merely had to read a single speech written for her by the producers from a Teleprompter before a live, enthusiastic, and sympathetic crowd. With an inquisitive and massive TV audience also watching, she performed beyond even the show producers' wildest expectations. Even the viewing audience, who would normally sit in judgment over the course of several competitions, was completely willing to overlook how she got there and almost everything else about her. They even forgot they hadn't actually voted for her."
Goldring observes that
"it's one thing for a performer to win American Idol with a performance matched solely against the other predominantly amateur contestants. It's quite another thing when the audience starts to look deeper and compare that performer and their skill set to every other seasoned, professional performer and recording artist of today and yesteryear."
As an entertainment lawyer, Goldring knows that
"what's great on American Idol may only be marginally good or even passable in the real world of professional entertainers. Now the competition isn't just a handful of striving amateurs selected by producers for their oddball charm, but with real artists who bring a unique and compelling perspective to their material (self-penned, in many instances) that has been seasoned and honed through years of struggle and being vetted by the established recording industry and the paying public."
Goldring considers "
the multitude of previous American Idol contestants from the past seven seasons who, unlike our winner, actually went through the show's insulated but rigorous-in-its-own-way vetting process
" and reminds us that
"for the few performers who competed and went on to have, so far, a somewhat viable career (Carrie Underwood and Kelly Clarkson come to mind), the vast majority of them never broke through into the mainstream and become superstars. Those contestants may have been huge household names and media darlings during the particular weeks they were competing and succeeding on the show, but they were quickly forgotten the minute they lost. Pop culture has a short memory, and an even shorter shelf life: Ruben Studdard and Clay Aiken anyone? Fantasia? Taylor Hicks? Sanjaya?"
Goldring warns that "
it's important not to confuse someone riding the wave of constant media exposure with an artist who has a sustainable career and could become a game-changer."
Goldring asks "how will Sarah Palin, with her free pass to the crown of this fall's American Political Idol, now fare in the real world?" and suggests that we're
"already beginning to see the cracks in the Alaskan ice beneath her feet -- and it's a safe bet they'll only deepen and widen as the Democrats, the media and (hopefully) the public continue to probe to find the substance beneath the sizzle."
He reminds us that Barack Obama
"has been subjected to thorough (some would say "brutal") public vetting for the 19 months since he's arrived on the national scene as a Presidential candidate. Each of his interviews, speeches, statements, debate answers, Senate votes, and personal and public actions and associations has been dissected ad nauseum. But, painful as it was, this vetting ultimately helped him secure the trust of the more than 18 million voters in the more than fifty grueling primary contests marking his historic ascent to the head of the Democratic party."
And compares Obama's 19 month-long and over 18 million voter-strong vetting process to Palin's:
"By comparison, Sarah Palin hasn't been vetted -- or been voted for -- by anyone outside Alaska in her rise to becoming the Vice Presidential nominee. After a single in-person meeting and one phone conversation, John McCain anointed her. And the pop culture-obsessed, star-making public jumped right on board.
Just like with American Idol (and so many other similar "reality" shows), the public was initially thrilled with the prospect that "someone just like me" could become a famous superstar overnight and cheered them on. But just like most of those forgotten media-manufactured celebrities who became "famous for being famous", the clock is now ticking, and the real question is whether Sarah Palin deserves more than fifteen minutes of America's time."
Goldring ends on an optimistic note, betting that
"come November 4, Sarah Palin will just be the latest addition to the list of "American Idols" who came and quickly went.
As long as Americans see through this charade and reject the political producers' ploy in the voting booths, Governor Palin's legacy will be secure in the annals of popular culture:
As an answer to a trivia question."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Or maybe as a contestant on Dancing with the Stars.