In a follow-up to the Trump-Harris debate held on September 10, 2024, The New York Times published a "Guest Essay" by Michael Hirschorn. Hirschorn is the chief executive of Ish Entertainment and the former head of programming at VH1.
Mr. Hirshorn's essay was titled, "How a Naked Man on a Tropical Island Created Our Current Political Insanity." If you have online reading privileges, I certainly encourage you to read the column yourself. Clicking that title link should bring you to the article. Whether you will then actually be able to read the article will depend on your New York Times' reading privileges, or lack thereof.
In sum, Hirschorn's article says that the very first season of "Survivor," the famous "Reality TV" show, was won by Richard Hatch, who was sometimes called "The Naked Man," and that his victory proved that being "unlikable," as opposed to "likable" was a viable way to get ahead in a media-dominated environment:
For those still struggling to understand how Donald Trump could remain within sight of being our president again despite flattering dictators, inspiring an attempted coup, getting convicted on 34 felony counts, vowing to shred the Constitution and imprison opponents, and decorating his bathroom with state secrets, not to mention blustering semi-coherently in Tuesday’s debate, it’s worth looking back to a certain island in the South Pacific, and a man named Richard Hatch.
As a contestant on the first season of the CBS reality show “Survivor,” Mr. Hatch did something that, in the year 2000, seemed shocking. Instead of trying to win the show’s competition on its own terms — that is, voting in a straightforward manner on which of his fellow contestants most deserved to advance to the next round of competition — the often rude, sometimes randomly naked Mr. Hatch struck a strategic alliance to force out his strongest adversaries. Then, in full win-by-any-means-necessary mode, he outsmarted the producers by opting out of a key challenge and maneuvered himself to victory. But most shocking of all, he broke the golden rule of network television: You have to be likable. David Letterman even predicted “rioting in the streets” if “the fat naked guy” won. He was the most hated man in America.
Hirschorn may be on to something, as a way to explain how Donald J. Trump could ever be taken seriously, by citizen-voters, as a candidate for the presidency of the United States. I have, though, another and different observation I'd like to make, prompted by Hirshorn's "Guest Essay."
Those who "love" Trump (or those who "hate" him) are accurately portrayed by Hirschorn as "observers." "Survivor," the television show, is an activity defined by "watching." Hirschorn's commentary is based on the idea that our "politics" is essentially defined by contests in which citizens "observe" the candidates, and then pick the one they'll vote for - and that the voters won't, at least always, vote for the candidate that they "like" the most.
But what we have traditionally had in the United States - the whole "idea" of our politics, as a matter of fact - is a politics that derives its meaning not from "watching" what other people do, but is defined by citizen participation. Remember, "politics" is simply the way - at least in part - we hope to achieve "self-government." That phrase, "self-government," indicates that we don't expect to participate in politics by "observing," but by "acting." The whole idea, in fact, is that we ARE the government, and we won't actually be able to sustain our system of "self-government" unless we get involved in politics and government ourselves.
So, if things are rotten in American politics, let's put the blame where it belongs. Take a look in the mirror!
Image Credit:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment!