Comments on: Emile Durkheim on Zell Miller

By: Louis Wheeler

Louis Wheeler — Mon, 06 Sep 2004 22:38:05 +0000

There are only a few things which spoil your theory. Zell always was a rabble-rouser. He comes from an evangelical Southern culture—fire and brimstone preaching was still popular while he was growing up. He was on his best behavior the other night. Besides, he made some good points. Points that Kerry needs to address. Also, political conventions are but meaningless now. Technology and primaries have rendered them irrelevant, so they are just an infomercial. And too, the protesters outside were not native New Yorkers, but were from all over the country. Other than that you have a dandy theory.

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 03 Sep 2004 22:23:57 +0000

Sure, it was frightening in a way, but – to me – not as much as listening to soft-spoken Richard Perle, for example, or Frank Gaffney. I know what you mean. Miller was so over the top that he never achieved that bloodcurdling effect that somebody like Perle does when he’s coolly rationalizing the horrible deaths of thousands of people in the name of democracy and peace. It’s interesting that so many people seem to feel that the closest recent precedent for Miller’s speech was Pat Buchanan’s (in)famous convention address in 1992. The big difference is that Buchanan, IIRC, delivered his call to “religious war” in the calm, measured tones of a seasoned talking head. Which made his speech all the more terrifying, and all the less susceptible to the derision and ridicule that’s been (justifiably) heaped on ZM.

By: Pedro

Pedro — Fri, 03 Sep 2004 19:04:12 +0000

Not having read ‘the wisdom of crowds’, I am still a believer in the folly of crowds. Whatever one may make of the former, the latter regularly manifests itself with vehemence in front of any sane person’s eyes. I believe that the people planning and scripting the electoral campaign of the Republican party are approaching their task in a business-like fashion. They view the campaign as a business endeavor. They know that short, catchy, quotable phrases translate into ‘talking points’, memes that are replicated with exasperating frequency on the media. They know that indignation has an audience—it is amusing at worst and strkes a chord with the feelings of voters at best. (The fact that it is divisive rhetoric matters very little: derision has a market, and can be amusing to many.) They know that vague descriptions of Kerry’s positions work well to indict him, to erode public trust in him, and to incite journalistic scrutiny of his record, which puts him and his record on the spotlight, and at the center of controversy. The propaganda machine of the Republican party is well honed, very professional. Witness the disciplined verbatim repetition of ‘talking points’ by infinitely many figures. Witness the propaganda machines of Talk Radio, Fox News Channel, the omnipresence of conservative pundits on the media, and the contrast with soft-spoken media like NPR. Invest money in the repetition of, and commentary on, simplistic one-liners, and you manipulate public opinion. Force your opponent to defend himself from your attacks. Pretend like the attacks do not come from you—use different fronts! It may all sound like a conspiracy theory, but I think it is just state-of-the-art political marketing theory. Crowds are stupid (or that metaphor applies sometimes), but marketing gurus are not. I am still waiting for Kerry to engage in the kind of responses to Bush’s attacks that I would expect from a savvy propagandist. Upon hearing the accusation that Kerry flip-flopped on the war in Iraq, Kerry should respond by using the same template that McCain used in his speech: President Bush would have us believe that authorizing him to use force is akin to giving him a blank cheque on Iraq. He would have us believe that … [insert here the Fareed Zakaria remarks on the war in Iraq that sometime ago were discussed in this blog]. That way, the attention goes back to Bush. Instead of defending his record, Kerry ought to be attacking Bush, with swift one-liners, simplistic pieties, and harsh dismissiviness of the Presidential talking points.

By: Another Damned Medievalist

Another Damned Medievalist — Fri, 03 Sep 2004 18:33:51 +0000

The frightening goes with the delegates. oops!

By: Another Damned Medievalist

Another Damned Medievalist — Fri, 03 Sep 2004 18:24:53 +0000

regarding preparation, etc being modern, I have just one word—Cicero? Otherwise, what I find interesting is that, although the delegates seemed to love it (very frightening) people like McCain have had no problem distancing themselves.

By: abb1

abb1 — Fri, 03 Sep 2004 17:40:57 +0000

Sure, it was frightening in a way, but – to me – not as much as listening to soft-spoken Richard Perle, for example, or Frank Gaffney.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Fri, 03 Sep 2004 17:38:13 +0000

“Maybe I am unusual, agoraphobic or autistic, for eveyone else seems to like it well enough. I just don’t like people quite that much.” Well as Dorothy Parker said in a different but similar context, come over here and sit by me. Not everyone else; and I don’t either. One of the more obvious examples of that phenomenon, and one that invariably makes me want to throw everything I can lay hands on at the tv, is the interview two-step when (1) the interviewer induces the interviewed to cry and (2) the camera operator instantly zooms in on the face of the cryer so that we can all get a really good look.

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Fri, 03 Sep 2004 17:06:21 +0000

“The difference from when Durkheim wrote is the presence of television.” The close-up. The difference between watching Lincoln or Kennedy at 10 or 100 meters and feeling as if Zell Miller were two feet away is the difference between watching a speech and having a conversation or argument. Someone has to have studied this. I find it completely invasive and oppressive, regardless of content, from sitcoms to sports, and the closeup is the primary reason my television is usually off. Maybe I am unusual, agoraphobic or autistic, for eveyone else seems to like it well enough. I just don’t like people quite that much.

By: P O'Neill

P O'Neill — Fri, 03 Sep 2004 16:25:50 +0000

The difference from when Durkheim wrote is the presence of television. The passage does indeed capture the apparent dynamic inside MSG. But of course on television, Zell’s performance went down very differently. Zell got his moment of one-ness with the crowd, but now the discussion is whether his TV podium face most resembles that of Freddy Krueger or the Emperor Palpatine. Not necessarily a good thing.

By: Howard Dean

Howard Dean — Fri, 03 Sep 2004 16:17:33 +0000

YEAARRRGH!!

By: tina

tina — Fri, 03 Sep 2004 14:19:11 +0000

abb1: did you just call Durkheim’s theory psychobabble? That’s a bit of a stretch, if you ask me. Regardless of the speechwriting and the planning, the delegates lapped up Miller’s speech like a bowlful of cream, while a more reserved speech like McCain’s fell flat. What I’m learning about Republicans this convention really frightens me.

By: Tom T.

Tom T. — Fri, 03 Sep 2004 13:19:15 +0000

the buzz they get from feeling angry … and superior Surely this is an attribute universal to humanity.

By: abb1

abb1 — Fri, 03 Sep 2004 11:09:50 +0000

Right, I agree. Psychobabble is fun, but in reality this was a professional, precise, poll-tested operation targeting specific segment of the voting population (mid-western rednecks?) while the potential loss of support in other segments (single women?) was deemed an acceptable tradeoff. The essence of it is not buzz, not enthusiasm, but a boring cost/benefit analysis.

By: bad Jim

bad Jim — Fri, 03 Sep 2004 09:58:15 +0000

Zell was definitely out there. Since the speeches were written and published in advance and generally as much read as spoken, some of Durkheim’s remarks about orators and crowd behavior may no longer be entirely on point. Contemporary accounts of this week’s festivities have yet to regale us with tales of celebrities hung from lamp posts. The political life of previous centuries always sounds more entertaining than what we get now.

By: Bob

Bob — Fri, 03 Sep 2004 09:35:45 +0000

When all is said and done, or not done, as the case may be, surely this can’t be true: “TONY Blair has snubbed George Bush’s pleas to fly to the US and pick up his ‘war medal’ ahead of the Presidential elections.” – at: http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/news/tm_objectid=14558467&method=full&siteid=106694&headline=don-t-medal-name_page.html All of which leads me to better appreciate the scientific precision of international relations as an academic discipline. According to this recent assessment of scenarios ahead, the Iraq war could cause Iraq to fragment or not and the war might spark a shake-up of the Middle East, or not: http://www.riia.org/pdf/research/mep/BP0904.pdf?PHPSESSID=8f8c2f1b6a1d7c2fda9b53258370ed13