April 22, 2008
Column: A hit that no one can afford to miss
Why is the American presidential election such compelling viewing? Because it combines the formats of the games show, the talent contest, the television series and the sporting contest.
The early rounds of the primary elections have a structure that closely resembles The Weakest Link. We start with a large field of candidates. They are asked lots of questions on television. Then, one by one, the worst performers are eliminated.
The Weakest Link is one of the gentler games shows. As the election grinds onwards, it takes on aspects of some of the more desperate and humiliating talent contests, such as Girlicious and American Idol.
The remainder of this column can be read here. Please post comments below.
“Why is the American presidential election such compelling viewing?”
Because, from a young age, you were conditioned to think that you are somehow American and your concrens and interests are the same as that of Americans’.
This is achieved through the domination of cinema, TV and the internet by American cultural input which is mainly a Trojan horse for American political and economic domination.
Posted by: Pacifist | April 22nd, 2008 at 12:11 pm | Report this commentPacifist, you might want to read ’til the end of the article instead of retreating into the anti-imperialist rhetoric which seems to be your default position:
“And then there is one final reason why so much of the world is fascinated by the American presidential election. It is quite important…From London to Beijing, the viewers of “American President” know that – even if they do not get to vote – they have a huge stake in the outcome of the contest.”
You might not like the US, or its cuultural output, but that it is important is undeniable, however much you wish it otherwise.
Posted by: AYC | April 22nd, 2008 at 12:31 pm | Report this commentHi AYC,
To add to my charge sheet, I said “input”, when clearly I meant output!
Yes America is powerful and important and its choice of chief executive matters to the rest of the world but the fascination is because of cultural attractions.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | April 22nd, 2008 at 2:45 pm | Report this comment[…] great article I read today was in the FT (I don’t normally read this but we have it delivered to the office), anyway it was about the […]
Posted by: London elections and Banksy « Mj’s Blog | April 22nd, 2008 at 4:51 pm | Report this commentP: “but the fascination is because of cultural attractions.” I agree that that is part of the interest, but I would say only a small part.
By far the greater is the economic and military might of the US and people’s interest in how this will be deployed - this is far more important than mere culture. For example, British culture is heavily exported - pop music, books, fashion, TV & film and above all the BBC - yet how many pay interest to who is going to be the next incumbent of No.10?
Posted by: AYC | April 22nd, 2008 at 5:25 pm | Report this commentGR”My personal preference would be to introduce a sexual subplot – since sex has been a successful element of previous seasons of “American President”
Actually, that has been tried already…
Tabloids screamed headlines of Rielle Hunter is pregnant with John Edwards’ love child…
NY Times attempted to infer McCain had a fling with a much younger blond lobbyist….
Obama had tabloid headlines that he had a gay lover…
Clinton has had her own lurid gay lover internet smears
Americans, very wisely, either yawned or took the attitude of “consider the source” about all these highly irrelevant mean spirited stories..
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | April 22nd, 2008 at 5:53 pm | Report this commentGreat article Mr. Rachman. Just one thing: quarterbacks aren’t talking to linebackers before they hike the ball (they are on opposing teams). They are taking to their linemen about the blocking scheme (to keep the linebackers out) and possibly changing the play. Best, Michael Johnson
Posted by: Michael Johnson | April 22nd, 2008 at 6:38 pm | Report this commentAYC,
There is also a big focus on Britain, bigger than its intrinsic weight in the world, as for instance global media coverage of the royal family (which receive much more interest than say, the royals in the Netherlands or Spain). Global culture, as such exists, is for better or worse biased towards the Anglo-American. Of course, the most conspicuous example of this is the English language, which is also the vehicle through which Anglo-American is transmitted and made predominant. How many people outside Germany, for instance, blog on Der Spiegel? But here on this blog there is a veritable cross-section of world bloggers (except for Chinese bloggers, who are possibly blocked). Why is this? And how much of Britain’s comparable advantage in journalism, rock music and finance is due to its lingual seigniorage?
Posted by: RCS | April 22nd, 2008 at 8:15 pm | Report this commentAYC,
There is no question that the US is big and important. If it were not, we would probably not have the international problems we do today… The reason everybody is so tuned in is because we ALL have alot to lose if the outcome of this election leads to no change in the traditional foreign policy dogma of the racist and crooked ruling classes and their Israeli masters.
On a side note, i have been watching Fox news clips on youtube recently and if i didnt know better, i would probably think that the US media (specifically fox) was deliberatly trying to destroy Obama with a vicious and deceitful propoganda campaign.
Of course that cant be true because Fox and its affiliates are all fair and balanced professional journalistic organisations with researched and objective reporting done by independant and qualified journalists..
Posted by: Reza | April 23rd, 2008 at 3:06 am | Report this commentGo on, Reza, you haven’t spewed enough hatred yet.
Posted by: RCS | April 23rd, 2008 at 3:24 am | Report this commentRCS, Reza Has it exactly right.
Posted by: Clyde Jorgensen | April 23rd, 2008 at 3:38 am | Report this commentI was so hoping she would not get that double digit win but her militant fear mongering got her there…She is toxic!… just toxic!
Read the NY TIMES Editorial that will appear tomorrow (Wed Apr 23)
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | April 23rd, 2008 at 4:14 am | Report this commenthttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/opinion/23wed1.html?ref=opinion
yeh, carl rove, former bush adviser, calling OBAMA arrogant!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Reza | April 23rd, 2008 at 7:33 am | Report this commentDeae RCS,
1-) Thank you for making my point, about cultural significance,for me by extending the example to Britain punching above her economic / demographic / geographic weight.
2-) About Reza spewing hate…surely, if he were poisonous enough, in the manner of US presidential candidates Clinton and McCain he would do well in the US.
Today the FT reports Hillary Clinton saying that she would obliterate Iran and McCain infamously sang bomb bomb bomb…Iran.
Visions of McCain, Clinton, Joe Lieberman and other AIPAC elders holding hands and singing the Hava Nageela whilst the world burns cerainly come to mind.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | April 23rd, 2008 at 11:01 am | Report this commentDear P,
It’s a pleasure. I don’t mind making “your” point, or anyone else’s, whenever I believe it’s correct. But that can only be when you are rational, not when you’re having apocalyptic Ahmadi-Nejad style “visions”.
Posted by: RCS | April 23rd, 2008 at 11:29 am | Report this commentRCS: “And how much of Britain’s comparable advantage in journalism, rock music and finance is due to its lingual seigniorage?”
Quite a lot I should think. But it still doesn’t make people interested in the next incumbent of No.10 - however much they like the royals. The point still stands that the race for the White House holds a special fascination.
But Britain is important for many reasons other than just its cultural output and its linguistic advantages. It holds a permanent seat on the security council, has significant (if much reduced) armed forces - and the will to use them - a large, developed economy firmly integrated into the global system, the world’s leading financial market, and meaningful historic ties to large parts of the world through the commonwealth. So you can see that its importance is largely due to its economic and military might and political ties.
One other point on this that springs to mind is that certain countries in the world also reserve for Britain a special place in their invective, accusing it of being behind many of their ills, largely for historic reasons stemming from when Britain had an empire on which the sun never set.
Obvious examples of this include Zimbabwe and Iran, although Russia also seems to like picking fights with the Brits. This also helps to raise Britain’s importance above where it perhaps should be.
Reza: “There is no question that the US is big and important. If it were not, we would probably not have the international problems we do today…”
Surprisingly you’re right - we wouldn’t have the problems we have today. We’d be squirming under the Nazi jackboot, or perhaps living a life of glorious fulfilment in a greater USSR.
Give me the problems we have today anytime over any of the likely historical alternatives.
Posted by: AYC | April 23rd, 2008 at 1:15 pm | Report this commentThe problem of UK’s international status is: UK too closely follows US. This benefits UK since UK has US’s support. But it also makes UK be written off. Other countries just need to get a nod from D.C., they can comfortably pass London without a pause.
Posted by: jin | April 23rd, 2008 at 6:25 pm | Report this commentAYC,
I guess i should have expected such a typical response about the US fighting the Nazis and the USSR.
I will give you that point but i think it is necessary to remind you that in 1945 the US was still a racist aparteid state and had just mass murdered 500k Japanese civilians in cold blood. It is also worth pointing out that after 1945 the US alone was responsible for the deaths of millions of people around the world. For practicality i do not make a list of countries, circumstances or their casualties for you because they are simply too many.
RCS,
Over the time i have been on this blog i have never witnessed Pacifist make anything less that a completely rational arguement so it bewilders me that you would acuse him of “having apocalyptic Ahmadi-Nejad style “visions”….Pacifist is true to his name,
Also, my criticisms of Israel and the US are exactly how they sound, ie critisisms of injustice, immorality and racism. I dont see how you would liken this to spewing hatred..
LIke i have said before, there is no room in the modern world for a racist aparteid state and i would hope all faiths and ethnicities can live in peace together on our communal god ordained homeland, planet earth
Posted by: Reza | April 24th, 2008 at 3:02 am | Report this commentlastly
the US vetoed this resolution in 1987 demanding that Iraq stop using WMD against Iranians.. Why on earth would they do that i ask?..
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/524/70/IMG/NR052470.pdf?OpenElement
Posted by: Reza | April 24th, 2008 at 7:04 am | Report this commentReza, by “vetoed” do you mean “sponsored”?
Wikipedia - “However, U.S. attention was focused on isolating Iran as well as freedom of navigation, criticizing Iran’s mining of international waters, and sponsored UN Security Council Resolution 598, which passed unanimously on July 20, under which it skirmished with Iranian forces”
Please clarify whether the clearly pro-US Wikipedia has again gotten their facts wrong. Thanks in advance!
Posted by: Bergtraum | April 24th, 2008 at 9:25 am | Report this commentdear Bergtraum,
No, i mean the resolution was sponsored by Malaysia and approved by all members of the security counsel except the US who vetoed it, meaning that it did not passed and Saddam continued to gas IRanians with anthrax and mustard gas
Posted by: Reza | April 24th, 2008 at 9:37 am | Report this commentReza, “For practicality i do not make a list of countries, circumstances or their casualties for you because they are simply too many.” Very convenient. I’m sorry, but I just do not accept that the US alone was responsible for the deaths of millions around the world. You’ll have to do better than making wild-eyed allegations (almost worthy of Pacifist) without any evidence to back it up.
What I do accept however, is that millions of people were killed by the Soviet Union alone, by Pol Pot alone, by Mao alone, but not by the US alone. And your point about Japan is entirely moot; your point about the “racist state” overdone.
“LIke i have said before, there is no room in the modern world for a racist aparteid state.” Do you mean Saudi Arabia by any chance? Iraq? Syria? Jordan? Ever hear the term Judenrein? But perhaps you just meant Iran - totally racist. Or merely Zimbabwe - clear racism on show there. Don’t see you mentioning any of these states. But that doesn’t fit your agenda.
Sure the US has faults. Sure western civilization as a whole has faults. Mistakes are made in the application of policy - economic, political and military - mistakes which can have severe and tragic consequences. But by failing to acknowledge even the remotest possibility that any good can come from any policy ever pursued by the US you overplay your hand. What is more, your arguments provide moral succour to those who are the real enemies of a fairer, more just world.
Posted by: AYC | April 24th, 2008 at 11:09 am | Report this commentAYC,
In 1954 President Eisenhower made the following statement:” If the Vietnamese
were allowed to freely vote according the Geneva Agreements with the French,
Then the VIetminh would win.”
Subsequent presidents involved the US in a war against the Vietnamese which had the effect of 3 million deaths as a result of the conflict.
About 50,000 died horrible
deaths thru’ the use of agent orange.
This was true chemical warfare. There is still teratogenesis going on there.
This was a war crime– the american invasion of Vietnam and the war.
3 million dead cannot be forgotten. The number in Iraq is about one million so far. This is happening right now. You have to be morally energized right now.
Posted by: Cassandra | April 24th, 2008 at 11:45 am | Report this commentSwapping YouTube links is a dull and lazy way to conduct a discussion, so I’ve deleted them. Let’s keep it civil and on topic please.
Damian Carrington
Posted by: Damian Carrington | April 24th, 2008 at 12:19 pm | Report this commentInteractive editor, FT.com
“The number in Iraq is about one million so far. This is happening right now. You have to be morally energized right now.”
That number is horribly exaggerated, but the key fact that you didn’t seem to address is that the vast majority of people killed in Iraq weren’t killed by the US, or even by allies of the US, but were targeted either by the Sunni muslim death cultists or Iranian proxy Shia militias / death squads.
But I would love you to get energized about Sudan, where 200,000+ people have been massacred and the war crimes / genocide are ongoing.
Posted by: AYC | April 24th, 2008 at 12:22 pm | Report this commentPacifist: “Visions of McCain, Clinton, Joe Lieberman and other AIPAC elders holding hands and singing the Hava Nageela whilst the world burns cerainly come to mind.” If this isn’t wild-eyed, I’m not sure what is.
Posted by: AYC | April 24th, 2008 at 1:10 pm | Report this commentDear AYRCS,
I wish you both a happy Pesach.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | April 24th, 2008 at 3:38 pm | Report this commentP,
If that was meant sincerely, you would not have played with the initials.
As it stands, it seems like an inflammatory remark. Which is a pity.
Posted by: RCS | April 24th, 2008 at 6:07 pm | Report this commentDear RCS,
Happy Pesach (Passover) is an inflammatory remark?…WOW!
I have to be careful next xmas!
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | April 24th, 2008 at 6:30 pm | Report this commentPacifist,
how dare you spew such apocalyptic inflammatory hatred
speaking of lieberman, hes probably most likely vice president for mccain. if you thought Cheney was scary, just wait to see what this lunatic is capable of
Posted by: Reza | April 25th, 2008 at 9:46 am | Report this commentReza “speaking of lieberman, hes probably most likely vice president for mccain.”
Searing analysis. But if you dare to peer past your prejudices, you’ll see that although McCain and Lieberman are indeed good friends, the latter most likely will not be the running mate for the former. The reason being McCain’s need to shore up the right wing vote, making it more likely that he will pick a running mate with strong right wing credentials.
Posted by: AYC | April 25th, 2008 at 10:01 am | Report this commentAYC,
To the right of Lieberman (USA) you will find the Armageddonites, Creationists, Apokalypsis freaks and others.
If McCain gets elected (quite possible) you will then have what Jack Palast calls the “Armed Madhouse”
and a very fast road to nucleat war.
So Lieberman(USA)might just fit the ticket.
Posted by: Cassandra | April 25th, 2008 at 11:22 am | Report this commentDear Cassandra,
The late, great Julius Nyerere once said: “America is also a one-party state but, with typical profligacy, they have two of them”.
Don’t forget that Joe Lieberman was the running mate of Al Gore in the 2000 elections (yes the same Saint Al that is now “saving the world” single-handedly
Also when Lieberman was de-selected by his local democratic party, senior Democrats, specifically Hillary Clinton, backed him against the official Democratic Party candidate.
He is an equally plausible running mate for Hillary (Obliterate Iran) Clinton, as he is indeed for John (Bomb bomb bomb Iran) McCain.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | April 25th, 2008 at 11:59 am | Report this commentCassandra, “To the right of Lieberman (USA) you will find the Armageddonites, Creationists, Apokalypsis freaks and others.” I have to hold my hand up - I had thought that you were dismissive of Americans, seeking to stereotype them in a way that fitted neatly the perceptions of the European left…
But back to reality - in actual fact Lieberman’s views on a range of domestic / social issues - remember foreign policy is only one aspect - overlap to a large extent with McCain’s, and these do not chime with a large percentage of the right wing voters McCain will need. Think environmentalism for example. Hence my earlier point.
Posted by: AYC | April 25th, 2008 at 12:24 pm | Report this comment