None of this should be taken at face value. Nobody's intentions are to be trusted. I don't believe a singl thing about H0ward $chultz, other than he wants attention. Same goes for the people talking about him on the tv. Same for the people dragging him on Twitter. Same for the people pointing out, "Well actually FDR hasn't been president in 75 years and wanted to tax the rich." What makes you think H0ward $chultz doesn't know that? Him saying that is why everyone was talking about him yesterday instead of say, Jay Inslee (Inslee, much like my 12-year-old cat, would make a better president than H0ward $chultz).
The first goal of 21st century US life is to get attention. The second goal is to figure out how to monetize that attention. The third goal is to use that to get more attention. The fourth goal is to use that attention to get more money. I think the fifth goal is to never die. I'm not sure on that one.
Because H0ward $chultz, and the people who talk about H0ward $chultz, are all trying to fulfill goals 1-4, nothing any of them--even the people you or I might agree with--can be taken at face value. I've written elsewhere that this entire country is just one bad faith argument, and the chatter around H0ward $chultz is the perfect embodiment of this. When he says he was motivated to run by the (hypothetical, long-way-off) policy ideas of Alexandria Ocasio-C0rtez, Schultz isn't just stating his policy positions, he's using her celebrity to signal boost himself. Talk about the thing that everyone's talking about and you're more likely to be noticed.
That's true of cultural critics as well. With everything quantified and trackable, you learn real quick, wherever you are in the culture/entertainment industry (which, at this point, pretty much everything, including our politics, is definitely in that industry), you're guaranteed to get bigger numbers talking about something popular or trendy than by trying to champion something you think should get more attention.
It should be noted that the word "talking" refers to all contemporary vehicles of communication--print, website, social media, podcasting, screaming in an empty room, etc.
So anything H0ward $chultz says, or anything anyone says about him, even the historian in my Twitter feed who issued that devastating takedown of H0ward $chultz's campaign ideas (both those last words should be put in quotes to clearly point out their bullshit factor--so "campaign" "ideas"), are communicating in bad faith. Because that historian, or that pundit, or that op-ed columnist could be writing about Andrew Yang (look him up). But they aren't, because people are more likely to pay attention to them paying attention to H0ward $chultz than if they pay attention to Andrew Yang.
I mean, look at this account retweeting the ABC account fellating the H0ward $chultz account. I saw it because it was retweeted by an account I follow, a writer for what used to be called Gawker Media Account.
this is laughably incorrect https://t.co/5D4fLvmB4B— Steadman™ (@AsteadWesley) January 31, 2019
The NYT reporter is right, of course, but so what. Should we assume that ABC News, or Rick Klein don't already know this? Should we assume they even care about being correct? There is no better way to get attention that saying something hyperbolic and ridiculous.The stupid people who see the hyperbole will believe it, and the intelligent people won't be able to resist their attempt to publicly demonstrate their superiority.
We are all compromised compromisers, attention addicts looking for the next fix. I am not immune to any of this, though I'm working to be more aware.
Even the company H0ward $chultz used to run makes him more marketable as a celebrity candidate than if he had been the CEO of, say, Auto Zone, or even Dunkin Donuts. Coffee, particularly gourmet coffee, conveys a certain status, a certain branding panache. If the CEO of Dollar General announced his (or hers, I have no idea who the CEO there is, but, y'know, playing the odds) candidacy, and that he (or she) was running on a pro-wealthy platform, and had a history of union-busting during their CEO days, they'd be seen as a reactionary, no-hoper. And while H0ward $chultz is all of those things, because his self-brand conjures up images of Seattle, Starbucks, images of liberalism. So even though H0ward $chultz is on record as calling universal health care "not American," his right-wing Randian horseshit can be counterbalanced by the things associated with him so that he can present himself as a centrist. And yeah, I know that hating unions and universal health care is about as "centrist" as it gets, but the Democratic party has been evolving away from that since 2008. In 2018, H0ward $chultz embodies the worst aspects of everything left of Ted Cruz. His policies are stupid, cruel, self-serving, and it's only the presence of that flabby, self-hating, waxen lump currently in the White House that keeps me from laughing at the whole goddamn pathetic spectacle.
But this isn't a political campaign, it's free publicity (once you discount whatever he's paying his PR people, of course). The only way to win is to deny this asshole the attention he's so desperately craving.
Note: While I was writing this, D0nald Tr*mp Jrrrr abbreviated the TV show Saturday Night Live as "S&L." People are currently tripping over themselves to laugh at his stupidity, but ask yourself this question. Would his message have reached as many people if he had written SNL? Also, never assume your audience holds the same views that you do. And remember that as you signal boost what, to you, seems like stupidity, his mocking of universal health care and reproductive rights is being transmitted all over the internet.
No comments:
Post a Comment