Adrien Halliez the Technological
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Adrien Halliez The Technological Decline of Consensus: How New Forms of Politicized Culture Impacted American Politics ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HALLIEZ Adrien. The Technological Decline of Consensus: How New Forms of Politicized Culture Impacted American Politics, sous la direction de Jean-Daniel Collomb. - Lyon : Université Jean Moulin (Lyon 3), 2016. Mémoire soutenu le 17/06/2016. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Document diffusé sous le contrat Creative Commons « Paternité – pas d’utilisation commerciale - pas de modification » : vous êtes libre de le reproduire, de le distribuer et de le communiquer au public à condition d’en mentionner le nom de l’auteur et de ne pas le modifier, le transformer, l’adapter ni l’utiliser à des fins commerciales. The Technological Decline of Consensus: How New Forms of Politicized Culture Impacted American Politics. Mémoire présenté en vue de la validation de la deuxième année de Master, mention Langues et Cultures Etrangères, spécialité 'Etudes anglophones'. Adrien HALLIEZ 2015-2016 Sous la Direction de Monsieur Jean-Daniel Collomb 2 Acknowledgments: I would like to thank Mr. Collomb for his supervision and helpful advice as well as some of my former professors from Lille 3; Mrs. Catherine Maignant, Catherine Pouzoulet and Audrey Célestine who first introduced me to research studies. I also want to thank my classmates for their support. I am also grateful to Lyon 3’s English Department and for the work environment provided by the university. 3 Contents Introduction: .................................................................................................. 5 I - The Idol and the Villain: The Debate over Ronald Reagan’s Legacy ... 24 I – A/ Ronaldus Magnus: The lionization of a president ......................... 24 I – B/ Ronald Wilson Reagan – 666: Evil in the White House and Social Plights in America .................................................................................... 38 I – C/ Historical Remembrance in New Media ....................................... 49 II- Domestic Warfare: How Disagreement Became Antagonism .............. 55 II – A/ Liberal Enemies: The Transformation of Dissenters into Enemies from Clinton’s Crimes to Bush’s Holy War ............................................ 55 II – B/ Hip-hop and Foreign Policy: Presidential Terrorists and Conservative War Hawks ........................................................................ 69 II – C/ Manichean Media: How New Culture Reinforces Ideological Conviction ................................................................................................ 79 III – The Climax: Politicized Culture and the Obama Presidency ............. 89 III – A/ Consensus is Worthless: How Barack Obama was stonewalled in Conservative Entertainment. .................................................................... 89 III – B/ Support and Disillusion: Hip-hop and Obama’s presidency .... 102 III – C/ The Obama and Post-Obama era: The End of the Political Daily Routine ................................................................................................... 111 CONC: INVENTORY OF EFFECTS ...................................................... 122 4 Table of Illustrations Figure 1: Illustration of the Apocalyptic Presidency of Barack Obama. .... 97 Figure 2: Rates of Polarization and Presidential Approval 1953-2015. ... 119 5 Introduction: In the course of its existence, the American political system has been the stage of different forms of engagement. All forms of commitment had to take into account a linchpin of American politics: bipartisan feuds are desirable but should not hamstring the governmental apparatus. In short, no matter how prominent ideological beliefs were, they were always baffled by the reality of political moderation and the structural limitations imposed by the American political system. In this study, I posit the 2000s and 2010s were marked by a downfall of moderation in culture which in turn, ushered in a political crisis. That political crisis is defined by an onslaught on bipartisan consensus. Shutdowns, gridlocks, lack of cooperation as well as verbal demonization and attack politics have permeated American politics since Obama’s election in 2008. Although the phenomenon is milder in non-elite circles, I argue that the nosediving appreciation for moderation plays a pivotal role in American public and political life. Consensus and collaboration have become dirty words in American politics because technological changes that started in the late 1980s sanctioned a polarization game which is currently reaching its pinnacle. The outcome is quite simple: the American political landscape is no longer cleft between two parties. It is now divided on the basis of irreconcilable worldviews. Disagreements borne out of that chasm have been voiced through jibes, jeers and flaks targeted at those who hold opposite standpoints. Political moderation requires the two parties to consent to meet halfway on some issues in order to enact policies. According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, consensus might be seen as entailing “the end of ideology” and can theoretically lead to “the replacement of conflict about basic values and goals by harmony about the ends to be attained.”1 It presupposes that at times, parties will be willing to take some distance from ideological tenets. As Richard Hofstadter was prone to point out in his study of the paranoid style in politics, consensus has always played a fundamental role in American politics. More than a practice, it is the art of professional politicians.2 Some observers like political scientist Geoffrey Kabaservice argue that the 1 McLean, Iain, and Alistair McMillan. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. 111. Print. 2 Hofstadter, Richard. The Paranoid Style in American Politics, and other Essays. New York: Knopf, 1966. 107. Print. 6 recent drift away from moderation is for the worse: “If moderation remains long absent from one party, let alone both, the consequences are likely to be dire.”3 My study consists in interpreting this visible comedown of consensus politics as an offshoot of the plummeting value of moderation in American culture. An important prong of my argument in this study is that this development was inevitable. Technological advances and an ever wider range of cultural options embittered public discourse and foreshadowed that rhetorical moderation or political consensus would become unfashionable. A perusal of politicized forms of culture helps elucidate these recent developments in American politics. It has long been surmised that political mass media “are not the major determinants of an individual’s vote decisions.”4 Recent statistics buttress that theory but it is a big mistake to dismiss aggressive political culture as toothless. First of all, political life cannot be reduced to electoral contests. The current atmosphere in Washington is a microcosm of a growing disconnection between different groups of American people (whether along racial, generational, or class lines). Secondly, even though the direct impact of political culture on individual voters is allegedly limited, communication scholars such as Guy Lachapelle explain that mass- mediated political discussion impacts on popular behaviors in two vicarious ways. On the one hand, the types of culture I will deal with influence a group of politically engaged individuals “who follow the action of government closely and who communicate the information.”5 Right now in the United States, the number of people fitting this category can be assessed at “around 10 percent of the electorate who voted in general elections [in 2008].”6 These politically-savvy individuals hold clear-cut views and try to spread their political beliefs. On the receiving end of both mass and interpersonal political communication, other individuals who are politically disinvested or uninterested, have a crucial role to play when election season is around the corner. The influence of occasional exposure to political talk coming from mass media and 3 Kabaservice, Geoffrey. Rule and Ruin: The Downfall of Moderation and the Destruction of the Republican Party, from Eisenhower to the Tea Party. United States: Oxford University Press, 2012. 401. Print. 4 Katz, Elihu, Paul F Lazarsfeld, and Elmo Roper. Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications. 2nd ed. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2005. 31. Print. 5 Lachapelle, Guy. “Political Communication and Personal Influence: Do the Media Make a Difference?” in Wolfsfeld, Gadi, and Philippe J. Maarek, eds. Political Communication in a New ERA: A Cross-National Perspective. London: Routledge, 2002. 84. Print. 6 Alter, Jonathan. The Promise: President Obama. London: Simon & Schuster, 2010. 279. Print. 7 politically interested relatives has always been tricky to appraise. In addition, the cultural forms I study involve artists and commentators who in their rhetoric, straddle the line between mass and interpersonal communication by aspiring to a privileged relation with their audience. Besides, more than the impact on potential electors, the phenomena I intend to describe in this study are illustrations of the clout exerted by media in altering political