Donald Trump, Howard Beale and “Network” Revisited

 Last night I decided to watch the 1976 award winning film “Network”starring Peter Finch as the crazed, mad-prophet newscaster Howard Beale. Both Finch and Faye Dunaway won Academy Awards in 1976, as did the screenplay. The movie begins with Howard Beale being informed that he was being replaced as the anchor for the evening news program of the fictional television network UBS.  The economy is in a slump, oil prices are rising, there is an air of uncertainty throughout the country and political leaders are not trusted (this is at the time right after the Watergate era and the Vietnam War). As Beale announces that he will be stepping down as the anchor in two weeks, he also proclaims that on his final show he will commit suicide on the air. This causes an uproar among the management of the network. After some back and forth, management decides to give Beale another chance to sign off appropriately and this time he announces that everything he has been talking about for the past 11 years has been bullshit. When he is given a third chance, he asks all of his viewers to go to their windows and shout as loud as they can “I am mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore!” Millions of people across the country do as he suggests and overnight Howard Beale has become a cultural sensation.

Meanwhile the young, aggressive director of programming Diana Christenson (played by Faye Dunaway) is watching this. She realizes Howard Beale is a hot commodity and so convinces her bosses to keep Beale on the air as "the mad prophet of television." So night after night Beale goes on ranting and raving about everything from the politicians to the oil companies to berating his viewers for being non-thinking robots who do whatever the people in charge tell them to do. He rants for a couple of minutes and then he feints night after night.  Ratings go through the roof. This show goes on for months until it reaches a crisis that brings the movie to an eerie and troubling climax. I won’t spoil the plot by giving the ending away, only to say that when it was over, I realized that 40 years later “Network” is still a powerfully relevant movie.

In 1976 “Network” was a statement about many things that were going on in the 1970’s, not the least of which was the complete control a few major networks controlled on what was news worth reporting. However, as I watched Beale rant and rave and stir up anger across the land, I could not help but think of Donald Trump and the violence that has begun to characterize his political rallies. Just the day before his campaign had to cancel a rally in Chicago due to the presence of so many protestors. A few days earlier in North Carolina a 78 year old Trump supporter sucker-punched a protestor as he was being led out by police. When asked about such incidents Trump either would say the protestors deserved it or as he said just today, he blamed supportersof Bernie Sanders for the violence; anything but taking responsibility for his divisive, polarizing, hate-filled rhetoric throughout the campaign.

In 1976 the message of “Network” was basically that the media was no longer interested in providing reliable and newsworthy information to the general public, but was about providing entertainment in the guise of news and making money by putting anything on the air that would get people to turn the channel to their station. Likewise the Trump campaign has not sought to offer reasonable solutions to the challenges facing the nation. Trump's  success has been built on his ability to provide a regular stream of outlandish statements and outright lies that made good headlines.

Early on in the primary season, I kept wondering why Trump was getting so much free air time. Then I remembered that long ago I realized that the reporting on political campaigns was not about the issues or fact-checking politicians’ assertions; no, political reporting was about winners and losers and focus on the most extreme and controversial things any politician said.

• Have you ever wondered how a candidate can be “gaining momentum” leading up to a vote, when no vote has been taken?
• Have you ever wondered why there is a new poll out almost every day as to which candidate is gaining or losing ground when no vote has been taken?
• Have you ever wondered why newscasters will report what a candidate has said without actually checking if there is any truth in it?

It is because the media is not helping viewers make informed political decisions when they enter the voting booth; the media sees politics as entertainment and so the more outrageous, the better!

Just like Howard Beale, Trump is cultural phenomenon who has tapped into the frustration, disillusionment, and anger of a certain segment of the population. He makes outlandish statements like he will deport all undocumented immigrants, cause all Muslims to be registered, and “bomb the hell” out of ISIS, as if these are reasonable positions, much less constitutional or remotely feasible. Then he directly and indirectly encourages his followers to violence and blames someone else for the violence when it happens.

Howard Beale was a fictional character 40 years ago, but 40 years before Beale there was a real figure named Adolf Hitler who likewise stirred a nation to anger and insanity, and eventually dragged the whole world into a World War. Adolf Hitler’s end was tragic, as was the end for Howard Beale. What will happen if Trump continues on?

Mainstream Republicans are worried that Trump will become “their candidate.” However, if he does will they seek to stop him, or in the end will they fall in line like lemmings? And will the rest of us sit easy while a mad man stirs many of our citizenry to madness? By speaking out against Trump, I am not painting any other candidate as flawless, but Donald Trump has revealed an ugly side to our country that cannot be ignored.  Regardless what happens to his candidacy, the fact that he has gotten this far is an indictment against all of us who failed to stop him and a media industry that has allowed him to get this far.

Yes, Freedom Can Be Expensive

Now that the Occupy Philly protesters have been removed from Dilworth Plaza surrounding City Hall, the city has estimated that the 8 week occupation cost the city $1,052,000, mostly in police overtime. While this number is accurate, its prominence in the media (such as the Philadelphia Inquirer and the major news channels) has shown how skewed the reporting has been. While the media seemed quick to report any isolated incidents of violence or criminal behavior, and focus on arrests such as the sit down at the Comcast Building or the demonstration outside the police station, they have given precious little space to investigating and analyzing the claims that the occupiers have been highlighting, such as the huge tax breaks that major corporations like Comcast have been given by the city. How much money has this corporate giveback cost the residents of the city? Not a word from the media on that.

As city officials have been quick to note the struggles to balance the city budget is part of the struggle of the 99% the occupiers claim to represent. Overall, I think the city officials, especially Police Commissioner Ramsay and Mayor Nutter, did their best to remain open to the concerns and demands of the occupiers. The reason they were removed was so that a multimillion renovation providing hundreds of jobs for local residents could go forward. That fact itself caused a split in the occupiers, between some who wanted to remain, and others who felt that the promise of jobs (a major concern of the Occupy movement) required them to move off the Dilworth Plaza sight.

The Occupy Philly activists have pledged to continue to bring forth their message. I hope they do. However, unless the media chooses to report on the real substance of the movement, we may not get to hear their message

Some Midterm Election Thoughts

Like many people I will be glad when next Tuesday, November 2 comes just so I won’t have to watch all the annoying, disinforming political ads and won’t be getting the robo-calls for this or that candidate. However, as we come to these midterm elections I do have a few random thoughts.

The anti-Washington Rhetoric

Have you noticed how many candidates are “campaigning against Washington?” It strikes me as very strange that there are so many people working so hard to get to a place they are so critical of. In this scenario Republicans have the edge, but if Washington is such a terrible place, why are they spending so much time, energy and money to get there? I realize that this is just a marketing strategy, but the people who advise candidates need to get more creative. I am sure there is a significant percentage of voters who will go along with the anti-Washington rhetoric, but really candidates, could you please come up with some sort of clear idea of what you will do when you go to Washington because 2 or 4 or 6 years from now, someone will be calling you a "Washington insider."

The Myth of the Political “Race”

Nearly every night for the last 3 months or more, we have been hearing about how the respective candidates are doing in their “race’ against each other. Emails tout that one is pulling ahead or closing the gap. If I didn’t know any better, one would think that the candidates were involved in some sort of cross-country marathon. The fact is on November 2, we show up, we vote, the count is taken and the winner is announced. It’s a singular event in a singular day, not a marathon (except for those of us listening to the reports).

The myth of “the race” is created by the media to bring drama to an otherwise singular event. It keeps them from using their news time to actually give us information on the candidates’ experience, their past actions and their stated positions. Instead of giving us information that can help us evaluate the ads that barrage us, they report on the ads themselves – how nasty they were and how much they cost. They run endless polls trying to determine who is voting, and what they are finding is that a huge percentage don’t know or aren’t telling. When they day comes, they will vote.

There is no “race” – that’s another media create illusion. Instead of getting us caught up in a mythical drama, how about taking time each night to share the fruits of an analysis and investigation of where candidates stand, and what they have done in the past; the drama will be in informed voters voting intelligently rather than emotionally.

My Thoughts on the Democrats

The other evening I received a call from the Democratic party (not for my specific candidate) but the party as a whole. Two years ago I gave money to Obama’s campaign and they wanted to know if I could help them out again. When I declined, the caller asked “Is it for political reasons?” and I replied “No, I am still voting Democrat.” The call quickly ended, but afterwards I wish I had said more.

This is what I wished I had said (and will, if some poor unsuspecting volunteer from the DNC calls me again.).

 “I am voting Democrat not because I am so enamored with the Democratic party; in fact I am profoundly disappointed. With a 60% majority in the Senate, a significant majority in the House, and a President with progressive ideas, the Democrats blew it. They could not pass a Health Care bill that really provided coverage for the most vulnerable; could not bring significant reform to the way Wall Street operates; wimped out when the President proposed to raise taxes on the wealthy Americans; and got us more deeply entrenched in a pointless, unwinnaable war in Afgahnistan. They were as easily persuaded my lobbyists’ money as their Republican counterparts, and when it came time to push thru some important legislation, time and time again, they had no spine. Many blame Obama for the sluggish economy, but I blame the bank and corporate executives who were able to get bail out money and gave themselves bonuses, while holding back on hiring folks and foreclosing homes; I blame the lobbyists from the insurance, bank and financial institutions who poured record numbers of dollars into the pockets of leaders on both sides of the aisle, so that they would shout and holler and do nothing to change the system as it is; and I blame the Democrats in Congress who did not back Obama when he tried to stand up to them.  When Obama’s party needed him, they wimped out. They aren’t a party with any clear agenda or principles, they are simply a fund-raising machine.

“Now you, DNC, call me asking for money with all sorts of scary scenarios about what the Republicans will do. I am sincerely concerned about the polarity amongst our political leaders. I am concerned about the “take back America” language coming from political conservatives; that can only mean even worse times for the poor, the immigrant, the person of color, and the marginalized in our society. I am concerned about the mean-spirit I hear in the Tea Party rhetoric of God, guns and patriotism. Yes, I am scared, so I will vote.

“But give you money, so you can put attack ads that distort the record and do nothing to inform the public of what a candidate actually said, did or believes? Not going to happen.

“Go and make some significant campaign finance reform. Reverse the Supreme Court decision that made it possible for corporations to give as much in campaign contributions as they want, with no stipulations. Take the money you are raising to improve inner city schools, or provide housing for people losing their homes or making health care accessible to all or putting real gun-control legislation in place; instead of those annoying adsa. But to support the kind of disinforming drivel that I have been watching for that last several months?

No, I don’t think so – so have a nice day.”

Real Democracy

I have long ago taken a cynical perspective on electoral politics (I know its not that obvious!), but I still believe in democracy; not the game that goes on in Washington, but real people getting together at the grassroots community level to make decisions about the health and welfare of their community. As I have said before what goes on in “the halls of government” is not democracy, but plutocracy (the rule of the rich). In order to get and stay elected a person must have or have access to a lot of money. A man or woman with leadership abilities and great ideas, but no money, is unelectable. However, at the grassroots level people can come together to make a difference.

When I was living in southern Minnesota in the late 1980’s I participated in the caucus system where residents came together to discuss issues and vote for the primary candidate of their choice. Then representatives of that local group went to the regional meeting which did the same thing, and then went on to the state. Those meetings were filled with impassioned, substantive political debate and while we did not always get our way, we were informed and our voice was heard

I have worked with a church in West Philadelphia that helped organize its community and got the city to board up or tear down dozens of abandoned buildings, and is now in the process of negotiating to get affordable housing for the people of that community. When a young man was beaten up by police officer, they called the residents together and had the police and city come and hear their concerns. I have also sat with residents at a local high school debating and discussing what they want for their kids and how they want their school to be run; again this was meaningful, substantive democracy in action.

Regardless of what happens on November 2, the real democratic process will continue, and we will tolerate the games that go on among the plutocrats who like to think of themselves our leaders. I still believe in Barack Obama and his agenda. I share his community organizing spirit, but he needs help; so in the mean time I will put my energies into real democracy at the grassroots level.