Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollections

THE NATION / CULTURE

In the Serial of America, President Is the Star

May 21, 2000|Neal Gabler | Neal Gabler is the author of "An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood" and "Life the Movie: How Entertainment Conquered Reality."

AMAGANSETT, N.Y. — According to a recent article in the New York Times Magazine, back in the late 1980s, Lee Atwater, George Bush's campaign manager, hired a French medical anthropologist named Clotaire Rapaille to suss out what American voters wanted from their president. Rather than rely on polls or focus groups, Rapaille held what amounted to therapy sessions with groups of voters in which they were urged to delve into their unconscious for primal associations with the presidency. What he discovered is that Americans see their president as a kind of "movie character" whose primary function is to provide "cheap entertainment" for the country.

After two years of Monica S. Lewinsky, this may hardly be news. Americans have regarded their presidents as paternal (George Washington and Dwight D. Eisenhower), as avuncular (James A. Garfield, William McKinley and Warren G. Harding), as professorial (Woodrow Wilson), as combative (Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman), as efficient (Herbert C. Hoover and Jimmy Carter). The film director and writer Andrew Bergman even described Ronald Reagan as the national host. But the idea that the office of the presidency would become a provender of entertainment, the idea that one of the president's key functions would be to provide the public with a few voyeuristic thrills, is a relatively new phenomenon--one the founding fathers certainly did not foresee.

Of course, in viewing the presidency as a show, Rapaille's respondents were demonstrating their cynicism. Americans have felt so hoodwinked by politicians, by the daily waffling, pandering, tucking and filling, that they have chosen to assert their superiority over the entire political process by pretending it is a sham, a show, a farce. They won't be fooled again. Describing the president as an entertainer is a powerful way to express this disillusionment, even if they don't fully believe it.

But that said, calling the president our "entertainer-in-chief," as Kurt Andersen wrote, is more than just sour grapes over a system gone wrong. It is, for better or worse, a fairly accurate assessment of the modern presidency--far more accurate now, after President Bill Clinton, than when Rapaille conducted his inquiry.

In truth, the presidency began edging into entertainment virtually at its inception, when it began deploying the techniques of entertainment to win office and sell policy. Being able to orate well, having a dynamic appearance, bearing a dramatic personal story, whether it was heroism on the battlefield or triumph over childhood adversity, were as useful to presidential aspirants as to more conventional entertainers; and these became even more necessary as the media became more ubiquitous and their scrutiny more intense. It was hard not to think of Franklin D. Roosevelt as part entertainer when his mastery of the radio was so critical in building public support. Fifty years later, the meaning of Reagan's election, a metaphor we now take for granted, is that a professional performer had just the right training and talent for the office--a fact Reagan frequently acknowledged.

But one suspects that Rapaille's group had something else in mind than this. It isn't that the presidency incorporates performance. It is that the presidency itself has been transformed into a long-running soap opera that the media believe the public want to follow. Indeed, this transformation of the presidency into a narrative or series of narratives may be the single most important change in political reportage in the last century.

Again, political conflict is obviously not new, and the media always enjoyed a good political tussle--be it Teddy Roosevelt excoriating his handpicked successor, William Howard Taft, or Franklin Roosevelt trying to pack the Supreme Court. But these were still essentially political stories.

As the competition for public attention grew stiffer, the political media became both more sophisticated and more intrusive, seeking stories likely to have popular appeal and increasingly dropping those that didn't. Political reporters discovered the presidency could be every bit as much a provender of personal stories as Hollywood, and that these stories would have far higher entertainment value than the policy debates that had constituted the bulk of traditional political coverage. In effect, by changing the purview of political reporting from the public to the personal, the political media wound up changing the very nature of the presidency itself.

Though old-fashioned political correspondents disdained personal coverage, the new political journalists adduced a number of justifications for the more personal narrative-mongering. They said candidates for the presidency and presidents had invited personal inspection by exploiting their families and personal histories for gain. They said private behavior was relevant to governance. They said the public had a right to know everything about a public figure.

Advertisement
Los Angeles Times Articles
|
|
|