[Page 4: Billionaires for Bush: Parody as Political Intervention]

Printer-friendly version

Entertainment as Engagement in the Age of the Spectacle

He will essentially follow the language of the spectacle, for it is the only one he is familiar with; the one in which he learned to speak. No doubt he would like to be regarded as an enemy of its rhetoric; but he will use its syntax.
- Guy Debord
Comments on the Society of the Spectacle

Political discourse in postindustrial Western society has inevitably been shaped by the omnipresence of free market ideology. The creation of a consumer society, fueled by capitalism, both reflects and demands the rampant commodification and commercialization of products and services, with advertising and marketing generating pseudo-needs to maintain the cycle of production/consumption and supply/demand. The movement of political debate in the United States consumer market, therefore, greatly relies on its "salability." Simply put, if it cannot please the masses or the target market, and cannot turn a profit, it will not survive in the commercial market. The ability to captivate and the ability to entertain, therefore, become vital characteristics of any form of communication entering a public discourse shaped by commercialism and profit.

The social conditions produced by more advanced stages of capitalism take form in what Guy Debord called "the society of the spectacle." According to Debord:

The spectacle corresponds to the historical moment at which the commodity completes its colonization of social life. It is not just that the relationship to commodities is now plain to see – commodities are now all that there is to see; the world we see is the world of the commodity (1994: 42).

The commodifying nature of the spectacle is best represented in the United States by the culture produced by the mass media. As long as the political economy is dominated by the motivations of capitalism, the spectacle is inescapable. The prominence of commercial television as this society's primary medium for political discourse attests to this inescapability. For example, in addition to citing the popularity of comedy shows as a political resource for younger generations, the Pew Research Poll report from January 2004 also confirmed that "television as a whole remains the public's main source of campaign news" (Pew Research Center, 2004). According to Neil Postman in his book Amusing Ourselves to Death, the implications of this phenomenon deal directly with the quality of information that is accessible by television viewers. Postman argues that:

Entertainment is the supra-ideology of all discourse on television. No matter what is depicted or from what point of view, the overarching presumption is that it is there for our amusement and pleasure (1985:82).

All information that passes through commercial television—whether dealing with politics, sports, or Hollywood—must be packaged with a certain level of mass-appealing luster. In the society of the spectacle, any news item that might be perceived as overly complex or uninteresting must be reproduced and consumed as an entertainment product. That is, for news and information to be profitable, it must be both accessible and able to engage the attention of the masses.

As such, entertainment becomes the primary vehicle for the distribution and exchange of information within the society of the spectacle. Under this condition, the fostering of political dialogue no longer necessitates a somber, humorless approach. In fact, the treatment of politics as strictly serious subject matter could potentially disengage and deactivate a good portion of the public that has become accustomed to the media culture of infotainment. Indeed, humor is effective in disarming the notion that politics are often intimidating, convoluted, and indigestible.

While theorists like Neil Postman criticize the nature of public discourse in "the age of show business," political realists recognize that to attempt to escape the postmodern spectacle is to be overly idealistic and ultimately ineffectual. Postmodern culture reflects the integration of mass, popular culture into all social realms previously dominated by exclusivity and high culture, including art, education, and politics. That the process of humor involves both intellect and accessibility reflects this condition, making it a most appropriate tool for postmodernists and political realists alike.

Evaluating the success of Billionaires for Bush working within and with the tools of spectacular society can simply be a matter of recognizing their popularity with and ability to use the mass media. Within the eleven months of their existence, the Billionaires have generated countless appearances in mass media, mostly in national press (http://www.billionairesforbush.com/press.php). In fact, the Billionaires achieved an unprecedented record with the New York Times, appearing as the main subject in four articles within two months. This amount of attention from one of the most distinguished commercial news outlets of the country is exceptional for any organization or event, much less one that pushes a progressive political agenda.

The Billionaires have certainly mastered the art of attracting the devices of spectacular society, but how successful have they been in using the spectacle to the benefit of their ultimate goal: detracting from the popularity of George Bush? Of course, such achievements are hard to quantify, but an examination of the content of these media appearances can serve as an adequate indication. The focus of the articles attests to the fact that while the use of humor and entertainment can easily attract the attention of the masses and the press, it is a more difficult task to use this method to propagate a complex political message. This is, of course, the expected challenge in using entertainment to push a serious political message. Most articles highlighted the novelty of the Billionaire approach to political activism, but did not give center stage to their actual political angle. While most articles gave reference to the Billionaires for Bush website, which provides a more in-depth commentary and analysis of Bush's economic policies, the articles themselves give only sound bites of information. In the end, the Billionaires have certainly succeeded in becoming cultural icons. As to whether this status is enough to penetrate the voting predisposition of swing states before the November election, one can only speculate the impact of popular culture on the political inclinations of this country's citizens.