A blast from the past: Contemporary politics 3.0…

(Originally published in the Fall of 2008)
Mozart’s “Concerto for Flute and Harp” is on the stereo and an excellent Bordeaux has long been decanted and poured into an exquisite glass. The remains of a five course dinner have been cleared and the chill of the evening air floats heavily through the open window; my thoughts naturally turn to pop culture…

I have never shied away from my inherent elitism; rather, I have tended to embrace it openly- much to the chagrin of those who would use it as an indictment against me. As such, I am blissfully unaware of the latest manufactured dramas that encompass the lives of lesser mortals: I have no idea what Brad and Angelina are up to these days, I am utterly uninterested in the latest outrage perpetrated on the American people by Wall Street “fat cats,” nor do I know who is currently in the lead on whatever reality (does anyone wonder if the producers chuckle each time they describe their programs as such?) show is in fashion these days.
Why, then, the thoughts on pop culture (a term that should be used only in the loosest sense)? Elizabeth Hasselbeck, of course. Having had the misfortune of catching a few moments here and there of “The View,” I was not surprised to see the latest headlines screaming “Guess who called Hasselbeck a reject?”- it has been my experience that AOL never ceases to be on the cutting edge of significant contemporary events.

For the record, having briefly researched Ms. Hasselbeck, I disagree with nearly everything that comes out of her mouth; I do not, however, consider her to be the personification of evil in the modern world. I have never quite been able to understand how people on both sides of the bipartite political spectrum can muster such vehement rage to be directed towards those with whom they disagree. Does the mere fact that an opinion differs from yours automatically make it open to scorn and derision as the product of a third-rate mind? If facts are absent from a dialogue, do emotional outbursts qualify as acceptable substitutions?

The sheer vigor with which…well…everyone who graces this televised abortion attacks this woman is amazing to me. Dismissing her as an incompetent stooge of a political party would be one thing- if it were Noam Chomsky or William Buckley (RIP) doing so. Forgive me, however, if I do not bow to the intellectual prowess of Whoopi Goldberg or the incisive rhetoric of such a towering mind as Rosie O’Donnell. It is a sad commentary that sub-morons insulting each other are foisted on the American people as worthwhile entertainment.

I must state, however, that I admire Elizabeth Hasselbeck for the same reason I despise her. Not for her positions- she is every bit as cognitively handicapped as the rest of the co-hosts. Rather, she has stayed true to her views in the face of disturbingly vindictive drivel shot from the mouths of charlatans. I am not sure whether I could do the same; I would, in all likelihood, burn the set to the ground- that she hasn’t is the reason I have such a duality of empathy/disdain for her.

Is this how the American story plays? Have we come this far to gain so little? Will our legacy be one of revolutionary political thought in the essence of Thomas Paine or will it be in a sound bite from a View co-host describing her opposition to Sarah Palin due to the fact that “she’s just…y’know…MEAN, right…?” I shudder involuntarily at the thought. Will we remember the final words of Nathan Hale that defined patriotism or will we follow the stories of Hollywood celebrities who have “threatened” to move to Europe if anyone but Barrack Obama is elected (I see a benefit vice a threat- I’m almost tempted to vote for McCain…but the moment has passed)? Will our story be one of perseverance and fortitude in a rapidly changing world, or will we rely on press-board political hacks to suborn the word “change” into a meaningless aphorism?

Devolving into cliché, only time will tell…