As you all know, the great French writer Balzac's magnum opus is a compendium of short stories and novels entitled, "La Comédie Humaine.'.Although the French comédie refers here more to a play then to a comedy, that is, Balzac's writings are like a stage on which French society is realistically depicted. The English word, comedy, also seems to apply, since realistically depicted people with their vanities and weaknesses are not without comic qualities, often tragi-comic ones. It is in both senses of the word that I am writing this little essay entitled La Comédie Inhumaine. I will discuss a minor episode that has to do with political correctness and the relentless jockeying for power that characterizes current American politics. Although it is a minor episode, I do believe it gives insight into our current sorry state of affairs. I call it "The Inhuman Comedy" for two reasons: it is not without its comic aspects, and, sadly, the jokes are all on us.
The Super Bowl, which will take place in two days as of this writing, has became famous not only for its spectacle of athletes but also for its spectacle of commercials. Companies pay a fortune for their ads and really do their best to be creative, and sometimes, like Flacco in last year's Super Bowl--yes I'm from Baltimore--splendidly succeed. Apparently, General Mills will broadcast on Sunday their biracial version of the famous Cheerios ad in which a cute, very young kid lectures her waking father of the need to take care of his heart. The cute kid is carrying a large box of Cheerios, and the father, overwhelmed by the sincere concern of his child, will be eating Cheerios for the rest of his life.
In response to the ad--it is not new-- a minor employee of MSNBC, a cable station known for its progressive views, tweeted the following:
Maybe the right wing will hate it, but everyone else will go awww: the adorable new #Cheerios ad w/biracial family.
The Republican leaders of the RNC (Republican National Committee) were outraged--really outraged. The co-chair of the organization, Reince Priebus, insisted that the president of MSNBC, Phil Griffin, apologize both publicly and to him or he would do .his best to assure that no one from the RNC would have any further direct contact with MSNBC. Such a boycott would be detrimental to MSNBC, a station which definitely has progressive views, but, like any other news organization, attempts to cover all sides of the political spectrum. It was a very aggressive reaction on Mr. Priebus's part, and he undoubtedly meant it.
Mr. Grffiin, as one expects today when power is at stake, gave a treacly apology:
The tweet last night was outrageous and unacceptable.
We immediately acknowledged that it was offensive and wrong, apologized, and deleted it. I personally apologized to Mr. Priebus and to everyone offended. At MSNBC, we believe in passionate, strong debate about the issues and invite voices from all sides to participate. That will never change.
There is a famous line from Conrad's Heart of Darkness, "Oh, the horror, the horror!" I will paraphrase it here with, "Oh, the cant, the cant!"
I really doubt whether Mr. Griffin "immediately acknowledged" the offense. I am almost certain, being a life-long student of La Comédie Humaine, that this tweet wouldn't have resulted in any action on his part if Mr. Priebus hadn't made such a fuss.
The cant was, as one might guess, not limited to progressives. Here is how Mr. Priebus accepted Mr. Griffin's apology:
With increasing frequency many of your hosts have personally denigrated and demeaned Americans...
Hmm. It's all right to question the patriotism of progressives, but apparently not right to assert that there 'might"--the tweeter used the conditional-- be more racism on the right than on the left.
Do you really need proof of that? The Cheerios ad is not new--the biracial version first appeared in May of 2013. The YouTube site was bombarded with horrible racist comments. So many of them that General Mills disabled the comment option. (There were many "lkes" too.) Do you really believe that the political affiliation of those racists were evenly distributed among Republicans and Democrats?
The wording of the tweet, "Maybe the right wing will hate it..." was of course too broad. But if the tweeter had written, "More than a few on the right will not like it, but everyone else, etc.," the tweet would have been an all-too-accurate depiction of current political reality. Yes, the tweet was exaggerated. The tweet was arguably improper. The tweet was poorly worded and made a cheap attempt to put an entire group down. But was it really outrageous to insinuate that the Republican Party might have a problem with minorities? I think not. (I do think, however, that the far too cutsy tweet with its somewhat gratuitous dig at Republicans borders on the idiotic.)
Here is an excerpt from a statement by another RNC official:
We appreciate Mr. Griffith's admission that the comment was demeaning and disgusting...
I think he does protest too much.
Disgusting? If that is applied here, isn't that demeaning that word? There are many issues to which I think the word much better applies: the abuse of boys by priests, the rape of a 51 year old Danish woman in India, the lack of gun control in the United States, the attempts to sabotage universal health insurance in the United States, etc. All those things disgust me. I do not think the MSNBC tweet comes even close to merit that strong word.
Something else I find offensive, if not disgusting: Mr. Griffin, to cover his rear end, fired the hapless MSNBC employee who sent the tweet. If someone in a position of real power does something "disgusting" he or she often gets away with it. Not so for those at the bottom of the hierarchy. Mr. Griffith can boast that he is so impartial that he got rid of an offending employee. The issue of the immorality of firing someone at a time of high unemployment doesn't even come up. I don't know the full situation, so I won't call his behavior disgusting, but it might come close.
Why do those in power act so stupidly? The answer is simple: to maintain their power over others and, if possible, to increase it. Let's first examine a purely financial aspect of power that pertains to our subject.
General Mills placed that biracial ad because they believe they could sell more Cheerios as a result. Their analysts realize that the animus towards interracial marriage has decreased greatly. They would not risk their money if they weren't convinced of this. Companies follow trends, they do not set them when their finances might be threatened by doing so. If this isn't obvious to you, I will give a brief example
I was raised in the 40s and 50s in an exclusively white community. Nearly everyone assumed members of other races were not quite as human as the white race. This was a near universal belief among whites at that time. Whites, who still compose the majority of consumers, did so to a far greater degree then. We needed to be taught that racism existed in the mind and is not justified by reality. Now, I ask you, do you think the makers of Cheerios would have released such an ad then, when it was most needed? I'm sure there were General Mills executives at the time who realized how destructive racism is. I'm also sure they wouldn't let decency trump the love of cash. Yes, it is a good thing that General Mills has devised such an ad for modern audiences; in 2014, however, it is as "heroic" as the tweet is "disgusting."
Regarding political power, the situation is obvious. Mr. Priebus realizes that his overwhelmingly white party has to reach out to others to survive. Otherwise the hope to increase the power of the Republican Party will be in vain. I think that this is the key to his outrage. On Mr. Griffith's part is the realization that the ratings for MSNBC are much lower than for the conservative rival, Fox News; he realizes that he must appear impartial and open to attract more viewers. This is the key to his willingness to eat a supersized portion of humble pie.
As an old man without power, I am definitely more free to say the things I want to say. But I am still cautious. My blog is fairly widely read; I do not want to give false impressions to readers, say, in China or Poland, about issues and topics I think are important. I am thus amazed--perhaps the old word, flabbergasted applies--about all the incautious and inappropriate tweets, Facebook comments etc on the internet--What is the matter with these people? Do they really think a tweet is private? Why don't they examine what they write before making it public? Don't they know words have consequences? Especially these days when people are ready to jump at each other's throats?
La Comédie Inhumaine, the constant jockeying for power. A good image for our current political dysfunction is that of two moose banging heads together in Sarah Palin's Alaska. True, ultimately everything, including human behavior, is part of nature. But human behavior is supposed to be better than that of belligerent moose. Ha! Ha! Ha!
No comments:
Post a Comment