He’s no JFK or Reagan or Obama, i.e., a slick, handsome
marionette to distract us while the Establishment foists its agenda upon us. He
just seemed like a regular guy who happened to be in the right place at the
right time. Apparently, Fate has chosen this Average Joe to take his turn across
the stage of History. (Not Fate, really, just kitchen-sink dramas, the
frustrations of the working class and the petty bourgeoisie.)
Bernie is an apt representative of the ascetic aesthetics of
the Left. If you’ve ever attended a Leftist demonstration, you know what I’m
talking about: the repetitive chants, the draining anger or sadness, the
thrift-store decorations. It’s as if your loyalty to the cause is being tested
instead of reinforced. Are you committed enough to stick around through all
this anti-entertainment?
Noam Chomsky openly rejects any attempt to polish his coma-inducing
delivery. He has said that he doesn’t want to convince people with rhetoric and
theatrics, only the facts. We’re not supposed to be swayed by flashy gimmicks;
the truth of the message should shine through.
I’ve often (inwardly) bemoaned this resistance to refinement.
But it may have finally come into vogue. We may be witnessing the triumph of
substance over style. Of course, this victory is limited in scope and likely to
be brief, but we shouldn’t let that discourage us. En masse, people seem to be
turning away from the slick, polished mainstream candidates and turning toward
the straight-shootin’, rough-around-the-edges “outsiders.”
Bernie’s average-looking-ness defies the strictly
stage-managed, unattainably attractive world of television. He sticks out like
a sore thumb amidst all that spray-tanned, muscle-toned, teeth-bleached sound stage
fauna. His unkempt, white hair and inability to transport his audience via
transcendent public speaking skills (a la Obama) brand him a “radical” as much
as his platform (which most Americans support, actually).
In fact, he puts in stark relief TV’s growing obsession with
physical beauty. Maybe I’m just getting older and more insecure about my looks
and socioeconomic status, but the people on TV news seem to be getting prettier
and prettier. Apparently, among women, only those who look like they’ve stepped
out of the pages of Maxim can grasp
the complexities of meteorology. (Luckily for us men, the physical/intellectual
requirements aren’t as demanding.)
This may have something to do with the expanding gulf
between reality and the version TV presents. As the medium becomes more vapid
and detached from the everyday experience of the masses, the façade becomes
flashier to keep people glued to their sets in lieu of relevant information.
Increasingly, the talking heads’ appearance reflects the content of their
shows: vacuous, artificial, deceptive.
Of course, one could argue that TV has always been shallow
and populated with gorgeously shallow people. Why have we chosen now to become
disenchanted with these “pretty little liars?” I believe it’s because the
number of formerly middle-class Americans in dire economic straits has reached
critical mass. The flickering cube is no longer enough to distract us from our
worsening plight.
Perhaps the aspirational period of American politics has
ended, and we’re entering a more grim, sober and, frankly, resentful period. We’re
no longer dreaming of “movin’ on up” to the penthouse; we’re just hoping not to
slide into the gutter. If so, I welcome the embrace of substance over style.
But I worry about how ugly things could get.
