Palin, Roberts and Dylan
Many bloggers have featured funny/scary video clips from Sarah Palin book signings over the last week. You’ve seen them. Exuberant Palin supporters being asked why they’re there. They bubble about Sarah’s “vision for America” and her “policies” for a minute or so, but when asked to elaborate, can’t actually define her “vision” or describe her “policies”, demonstrate their own ignorance of what she’s actually said and voted for, and eventually looks as though they’re ready to punch out the interviewer.
It’s not fair, of course. Right wingers did precisely the same thing at the height of Obamamania last fall. If you interview a hundred supporters at ANY politician’s rally, you’ll find a handful of starstruck, clueless fans to ridicule. But still, there was something creepily familiar about those Palintological clips that I couldn’t pin down – until last night, when I was rummaging through old videos.
Sarah Palin IS Bob Roberts.
Remember that film? If not, try to dig up a copy (or I’ll lend you mine, if I know you).
In 1992, Tim Robbins had just finished working with Robert Altman on “The Player”. Inspired by Altman’s loose, improvisational style of direction, Robbins wrote, directed and starred in this mockumentary about a strange Republican musician who emerges from obscurity to run for the US Senate.
No-one knows much about him, and no-one actually knows what he stands for. But he keeps talking about the need for a New American Revolution, about “marching to Washington”, about the need to win back America from “the elites” for “the common man”. In an eerily prescient scene, Bob Roberts appears in a video dressed as a soldier in the Revolutionary War – looking, in other words, exactly like a Teabagger. He’s viciously anti-intellectual, mock-populist, and knows just how to push the buttons of the sullen and the resentful. Think of Kate McMillan with a guitar. Here are the lyrics to one of his campaign songs:
Some people will have, some simply will not: but they’ll complain and complain and complain and complain and complain.
Some people will work, some never will: but they’ll complain and complain and complain and complain and complain
It’s society’s fault I don’t have a job -it’s society’s fault I’m a slob
I’m a drunk, I don’t have a brain, give me a pamplet while I complain
Hey pal you’re living in the land of the free: no-one’s gonna hand you opportunity
At first the Democratic incumbent Brickley Paiste (played with cynical gusto by Gore Vidal) refuses to take him seriously. Roberts is clearly not stupid: but politically, he has no platform, no policies, not a clue about foreign or domestic issues- the only thing he knows how to do is inflame people, exploit their ignorance and resentment, and mouth platitudes about America. And then suddenly, out of nowhere, these terrible rumours about an affair between Paiste and a teenager start circulating…
I won’t spoil it for you: if you haven’t seen it, you need to watch this movie. Great performances by Robbins, Vidal, Alan Rickman as a Karl-Rove like campaign manager, and Jack Black as a funny/scary obsessive Bob Roberts supporter. (He’d fit right into a Palin book signing.)
When the film was made, Robbins refused to release a soundtrack album. He said he was afraid that the songs might actually be taken seriously by right wingers and used to promote the ideas he was mocking. At the time I thought that was a bit silly. How could anyone miss the satirical intent of “This Land Is My Land”? or “Retake America”? or “The Times They Are A Changin’ – Back”?
But I think I was wrong. Reread those lyrics I quoted above. What was parody sixteen years ago could easily be a Teabagger anthem today.
————————————————————-
There endeth the political part of the post. This is a special supplement for film buffs only.
Most reviewers at the time figured out that the character Bob Roberts was a right-wing version of Bob Dylan. However, they didn’t notice that the film deftly and hilariously recreates several scenes, almost shot for shot, from D.A. Pennebaker’s classic “Don’t Look Back”, the documentary of Dylan’s 1965 tour of England. Some are obvious, like the parody of cue card “Subterranean Homesick Blues” video. My two favourites:
- In “Don’t Look Back”, Dylan and Bob Neuwirth, both stoned, are dragged out of a reception to meet the wife of the Sherriff of Nottingham, and present her with a harmonica. In the Robbins film, Bob Roberts and Allan Rickman are dragged over to meet the wife of major Republican donor. “Oh, Bob”, she gushes.”I just wish I could vote for you a dozen times”. “You can,” he answers. There’s an awkward pause. “Just kidding,” he says. Everyone laughs. Sort of.
- One of the most memorable scenes in “Don’t Look Back” has Dylan at a typewriter, completely focused on his writing, while Joan Baez sits in the background singing “Percy’s Song”. In the Robbins film, Bob Roberts sits in front of a computer screen checking his investments while his backup singer croons: “We were marching for the children. Now we’re marching for ourselves…”
For an interesting (if depressing) evening’s viewing, watch both back to back.
Heh, I’ll have to watch them both. I don’t remember it all that well it’s been so long. This is one Alaskan whos not enamored with Sarah.
Great post, balb. I’ve never seen Bob Roberts, but I will definitely rent it now.
It’s particularly interesting that Robbins refused to release a soundtrack. His fear that the songs might be adapted by wingnuts must have been considered “moonbat paranoia” in 1992, but turns out to be incredibly prescient.
Your assessment of Palin and her supporters is right on — as much as her fans are quite rabid in their support, very few of them seem to realize what principles she stands for (other than the anti-abortion thing — which for some, is enough).
I think of her as almost a cartoon character, a contrived image that’s been created to market a product, much like the little characters that promote the 2010 Olympics. In Palin’s case, the product is some amorphous mass of emotions rather than anything tangible — resentment, anger, fear, as well as social conservative standards like overt religiosity and “family values” — a package of emotion that keeps the base motivated to vote.
It’s also probably why her supporters are so rabid: all emotion and very little substance.
Love that movie. Thanks for reminding me.
Read any Robert Heinlein? His future history had America ruled by religious freaks. Seemed implausible, before I knew what I know now.
Palin is not capable of Bob Roberts’ level of conspiracy. But those around her are.
The Wingnuterer did a twitter on her yesterday:
BREAKING: Sarah Palin commits suicide. Letter left behind: “I’m not quitting. I’m just refusing to be a lame-duck human.”
JJ: I guess every political party looks for an emotion to brand itself with. While I expressed reservations about both Obama’s campaign and his presidency, I do think that “hope” is a healthier wellspring to tap into than the sour pit of hatred and resentment that the Republicans like Palin are exploiting. They’re just different sauces to flavour the meat and potatoes of their respective policy; but I think Obama’s flavouring is better for you.
Mike: “read any Heinlein”? Son, my personal motto is “When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout..” Stolen from the grand old man himself.
What is there about Palin’s rhetoric that makes you conclude she is “tapping into a sour pit of hatred and resentment”? (nice rhetoric, balb). Americans naturally gravitate to leaders with a flair for memorable oratory, particularly if it holds out the promise of America meeting any challenge history throws her way and affirms it is on her side. It’s part of their revolutionary heritage. Think Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, Obama, etc.. and put their memorable quotes beside the best out PM’s have come up with (”The Just Society”. “One Canada” “A Community of Communities” “Cooperative Federalism”) . Canadians tend to sniff at American rhetorical excess because we are taught to be suspicious of zeal, especially American zeal, but as Carter and Bush found out, no U.S. leader will be remembered fondly if he doesn’t know how to channel the Battle Hymn of the Republic. Even pretty good ones like Eisenhower will be remembered like a plate of cold leftovers if they can’t.
Obama and Palin are very similar in that they a) have a gift for inspiring; b) validate American exceptionalism; and c) are widely seen as being able to do little else.
It may simply be my dislike of the principles she espouses, Peter, but frankly I have not found Palin to be a very good speaker at all. I am willing to be instructed – can you direct me to what you consider an outstanding sample of her oratory?
She isn’t known for memorable one-liners, but for making barn-burning speeches. The Convention speech is considered to be a modern classic. But I’m intrigued by your declared dislike of “her principles”. I thought the main rap against her was that she doesn’t have any coherent ones and is just a scattered loose cannon. From what I have seen, she has never targeted a particular class or race or religion or preached hatred of anyone except Washington officials, and that’s just just de rigeur electoral politics for Americans. It’s all pro-America, family, self-reliance, anti-government, anti-big business, etc. Her actual positions on things like abortion and religion are hardly extreme.
If by any chance she does run against Obama in 2012, I predict we’re going to get a lot of soaring, airy rhetoric with half the country insisting everything each of them says is code for destroying everything that makes America great.
“The Convention speech is considered to be a modern classic.”
Do you have a link? I’d be interested to view a sample of what you commend as her oratory. What I’ve seen so far is cheap demagoguery, but point me at this modern classic and I’ll try to give it an unbiased listen.
You haven’t seen it? Here are the highlights. Look, I’m not under any illusion I’m going to convert anyone to her cause around here and I’m not sure what to think of her myself, but I really can’t get my head around the charge “cheap demogoguery” from a supporter of the man who rode to the White House on “hope”, “change” and “Yes, we can”.
Sorry, that’s a fashionable and facile equivalence popular among conservative bloggers (and I sympathize – truly, what else have you got?), but I don’t buy it. I will look at those clips tonight.
balb, balb we’ve been having fun sparring for some time now. No need to hide behind polite euphemisms like false equivalency (a descendant of false consciousness?). You can just say you’re right and I’m wrong.
But that sounds so…judgmental. Correct, but judgmental.
I’m a bit jaded on this theme. On one of my compulsive dives to the bottom of the BT blogroll I got briefly engaged in a discussion with a chap called the Raging Tory, a young fellow who is apparently quite mad (he chats cheerfully about his symptoms, his medications, his uncontrollable mood swings, and his career plans, which changed in 24 hours from immigration to Israel and enrolment in the Israeli Armed forces to a somewhat more modest plan to enlist in the Canadian reserves). His contention was that Obama was “a lot worse” as a writer and speaker than Sarah Palin. Any attempt to elicit an elaboration on that theme was met with rapidly escalating incredulity. (YOU mean you can’t TELL she’s SMARTER than HIM? ROTLFMAO!!! I CAN’T BELIEVE IT!!!)
So if I start seeing strings of caps in your responses, I am SO out of here…
Life imitates art, which then imitates life… and so on back and forth until it makes my head feel like it’s about to explode.
Oh great, I suggest that, like Obama, Palin has pretty good rhetorical skills and I get lumped in with a frothing drooler who claims she is Churchill to Obama’s Chamberlain. And I’m the one guilty of false equivalencies?!
Can we not at least agree that she is more appealing than that appalling creature from 22 Minutes?
No equivalency implied. simply explaining why I was disinclined to debate their relative oratorical merits, even if I DO believe that sometimes gustibus SHOULD be disputandum.
Can we not at least agree that she is more appealing than that appalling creature from 22 Minutes?
Why is anyone bothering with this tedious American? For over a year now, he’s taken exception to criticism of Palin coming from Canadians, suggesting it’s a symptom of some kind national deficiency or malaise, despite it being no different from what Americans themselves are saying.
Anyone see John Stewart discussing Palin the other day? It was pretty good.
http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart/full-episodes/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart—november-18-2009/#clip235677
Straight shooter eh?
What tedious American??
Peter. He’s an American.
No, he isn’t. There are a couple of Peters floating around. This one’s practically a neighbour.
Well, he’s not a real Canadian, analogous to Sarah Palin’s “real Americans,” I’m pretty sure.
My dear Ti-Guy, I cannot agree. I have found Peter to be an informed and amusing interlocutor. Please remember: if the Peters disappear, we are left with the Mahmouds and the Patricks and the Dodos. And none of us want that.
@balbulican – balb – Great minds think alike. I had originally typed in “they remind me of fervent Obama supporters in some ways, but with hate & resentment instead of hope & change” — but thought better of it.
It’s funny, as much as I enjoy poking fun at her, I’m actually pretty ambivalent about Palin. There are things about her as a person that I think are pretty cool (she’s outdoorsy, she’s a runner, she’s into hunting and fishing, country living, etc), but she also represents everything that’s rotten about 21st century “conservatism”. Fear, divisiveness, anti-intellectualism, scientific illiteracy, etc. That’s what turns people off about her. But it’s also what turns her base on.
if the Peters disappear, we are left with the Mahmouds and the Patricks and the Dodos. And none of us want that.
Jesus, you’re right.
It’s the Palin thing. I’ve just had it with that.
Palin is popular for the same reason Mr. Smith Goes to Washington was wildly popular. She is a populist pure laine and very much in the American revolutionary tradition of championing “ordinary free people” against established bigness in government, industry, unions or whatever. That message resonates with the American electorate as much as promising that we’ll all be one big happy family resonates with the Canadian one. Let’s not forget that before she became a clown in coastal comedy and faculty clubs, she took on Big Oil and the Alaskan establishment and had popularity ratings in the stratosphere. We live in the age of Google and YouTube, so its’ easy to find mini-scandals and trash the personal lives of any politician, but she is much more accomplished than her opponents pretend. And every MSM talk show liberal who discounts Alaska and its yahoos just earns her more votes.
Like mercuric acid, populism can be both a very effective and very dangerous democratic cleansing agent (especially in Europe), but it is foolish to simply mock and scorn it. Her constituency is actually one the left once claimed as its own, but since it went the way of what Wolfe called roccoco marxism, cherry-picking politically correct oppressed groups, it has developed a very public and widespread visceral contempt for huge swaths of the electorate (proud Americans, family-defenders, Christians, suburbanites, fly-over country, etc.). You only have to spend a day surfing the Internet to see the contempt and bile. Does anyone believe these people aren’t listening and aren’t going to respond? Also, I am continually struck by how many on the left have become uneasy with electoral democracy itself, ostensibly prefering to be governed by the authority of such modern aristocratic Etats-Généraux as the judiciary, the UN or “settled science”.
I don’t recognize jj’s charges of promoting fear and divisiveness, or at least I would argue they are just as prevalent on the left. The scientific illiteracy charge I presume relates to Darwinism and AGW and can be answered (after a day of hard blogging) by the argument that the left has come to accord scientistific authority more unquestioned rote authority than the 17th century Jesuits commanded, much of it undeserved. It’s a fun intellectual argument, but speaking politically, if you are going to cheer on insufferable prigs like the Myers and Dennetts of this world as they roar into churches and classrooms in rural Alabama to mock the religious and tell them how incredibly stupid they are, don’t be surprised when them good ‘ol boys run you out of town.
The charge of anti-intellectalism, however, is fair and explains why conservatives like Brooks, Krauthammer, Graham, Frum, etc. are alarmed by her. It’s a fair cop, but the trouble is that it underlies just about every Euro-Canadian criticism of the States since Bunker Hill and the criticism eventually becomes aristocratic and even anti-democratic (notice how many European politicians and elites respond to losing a referendum on the EU by declaring they will just have to keep holding more until the electorate comes up with the right answer). The United Staes has always been exhibit #1 in the case for showing intellecuals don’t know what they are talking about half the time. I don’t have the answer, but to my leftist friends, I would say that if you really want to check teabaggers, know-nothingism, Joe Plumbers, etc., you might start by ceasing to describe these people as mentally-challenged sub-humans who should be effectively disenfranchised so you have free rein to re-order their lives and communities along the lines advocated by the latest chart-topping academic whizz from Harvard.
That’s why we like having Peter here.
She reveals both parties as being totally grossed out by a womany man’s woman, which tells us a lot about the reality of politics in the United States.
What’s a womany man’s woman????
Thank-you, balb. Hey, as a fan of music everyone else has forgotten, you might remember this one by the Kingston Trio? I’ve always thought it was an anthem for the sort of restless American spirit that now flocks to Palin. Of course, the Kingston Trio was considered a leftist group in its day.
She is a populist pure laine …
Stopped reading here. Palin has a net worth of 20 million dollars, at last tally.
Just kidding. I’ll read the rest to see if isn’t satire.
Ok, I finished it. Not satire, unfortunately. Just a hyperactive regurgitation of tropes typical of people who’ve learned most of what they know through the Internet.
It would surprise Peter, I’m sure, to find out that I agree with a lot of what he’s written. It’s just the constant high-dudgeon rooted in class prejudice (likely a pose more than an actual experience on his part, but I digress) I find exhausting. And of course, the endless scolding that warns us all (y’know..we cultural Marxists, radical feminists, tree-hugging moonbats and people who like public broadcasting) that if the Teabaggers’ detractors don’t all stop ridiculing dishonest, mean and bilious people (which is basically all they have left, since engaging the Teabaggers doesn’t work) there will hell to pay.
And I agree. Their adversaries should be engaging in the tactics the Teabaggers themselves perfected: vilification and defamation (including completely implausible fabrications), bad faith, unapologetic hypocrisy, conspiracies, rhetorical swarmings and wildings, widespread transmission of death threats and threats of violence and of course, eliminationist rhetoric, if not outright calls for internment and extermination.
I’m a populist pure laine too, after all. Pis y peut m’avoir si y me cré pas.
Peter – “I don’t recognize jj’s charges of promoting fear and divisiveness”
Two words: “Death Panels”.
The conservative base is fearful by nature (fearful of change, fearful of “the other”), and fear is the most effective way to motivate them. The GOP has been exploiting it for years, and Palin is no different.
Fear of “death panels”, fear of “socialism” — which is a real hoot coming from someone who supported the bailouts (puke) and who, during her aborted tenure as governor, forced oil companies to “share their wealth”. That’s what her supporters are talking about when they say “She took on Big Oil!” — socialism. And they don’t even know it, duh.
What’s a womany man’s woman? Why, a woman who has curves in all the right places and likes to play the same games men like to play without being threatening in any way because she doesn’t care about winning. She just wants attention and to make a few bucks. Honestly, I gosh darn guarantee you she’ll have her own reality show in a couple of years. But she’ll never get anywhere in politics because she’s TOO popular with the people and the real powers that be will shut her out – in both parties. Republicans don’t really want vox populi rule, they just pretend they do. Republicans are well-heeled crooks who like it the way it is, thank you very much.
JJ:
When you talked of divisiveness, I assumed you weren’t talking about over the top hyperbolic rhetoric about a bill before Congress. If you were, then you are just talking about everyday politics in the States. I’m not saying I’m an admirer, but there it is. Hitchens once remarked that an outsider listening to American political debates could be forgiven for fearing they were just a speech or two from another civil war. These are not people who have fits of the vapours over a video of a bird pooping on the opposition leader. Both sides do this all the time. Think of your favourite issue. One of my favourites is that if critiques of Darwinism are taught in high school biology classes, the U.S. may lose its international leadership in science.
I’m still looking for a quote from Palin that suggests she is fueling racial, regional or class hostility, one that doesn’t require a Democrat secret decoder ring to decipher. If it’s there, I’ll eat crow like a man, but I haven’t seen it yet, and all the sniffy trashing of her personal life by the beautiful people makes me suspect it isn’t there.
I’m not sure how this fits into the discussion. But in mid campaign, John McCain really won my admiration by saying – whoa. This is all getting out of hand. Obama’s a good man, the world will not come to an end if he’s elected, can we tone down the screaming a bit?
Palin didn’t make that appeal. She seemed content to ride the wave. At the time I cynically thought this was a campaign decision – good cop/bad cop, similar to the last Bush/Cheney campaign. I’m not so sure I credit the Republicans with that kind of strategic coherence anymore.
That’s fair, and Obama did something similar. There is no doubt that what to do about the loons and nasties in the crowd is a huge problem for the Republicans today, just as it was for the Dems during the Reagan and Bush years. (yeah, yeah, I know, false equivalency!!!). If Palin won’t do it, that’s a legitimate reason for opposing her, but I don’t think she is one herself.
Most political and electoral rhetoric in the States is jarring to Canadian ears. The many criticisms of Bush I heard from Canadians during his years were pabulum compared to what I heard from Amercians when I was down there. They fight doggedly for principle, we look for compromise and fear division. That’s why we lead the world in gold medals for niceness. I often have the impression when I’m down there that they really don’t even like one another very much, until someone from outside attacks them and then everything changes.
These are not people who have fits of the vapours over a video of a bird pooping on the opposition leader.
Do you have some sort of tin-ear when it comes to gauging people’s reactions? No one was having “the vapours.” People who reacted were angry at how stupid and childish that was…especially after two years of an attack campaign that was pretty much just as puerile. In fact, it was calculated stupidity to unnerve someone like Dion (and a lot of Canadians, frankly) who really just don’t know what to do with that, since the only time we come across it is among our children.
I’m still looking for a quote from Palin that suggests she is fueling racial, regional or class hostility, one that doesn’t require a Democrat secret decoder ring to decipher. If it’s there, I’ll eat crow like a man,
You don’t have to. Palin already ate crow herself for fuelling regional and class hostility. The racial hostility just comes naturally; she doesn’t have to fuel it.
Peter – OK, if you don’t want to look at how she’s propagandized the health care reform bill, just look at the presidential campaign. (Though I would disagree that there’s a Democratic equivalent of “death panels” — when they say 120 people a day die because they have no health care, they are not making it up.)
Divisiveness and dog-whistles abounded throughout the GOP’s presidential campaign. As balb pointed out, the moment McCain regained some of the respect I’d previously had for him as a ‘principled conservative’ was when even he recognized that things had gone too far. Palin had no such moment of clarity.
Palin continually referred to Obama as a Marxist/Socialist/etc., drumming up irrational fear and fury. IMO, anyone who refers to a moderate centrist like Obama as a “marxist” or his agenda as “socialist” is either too dumb to know what “marxist” and “socialist” actually mean, or is sounding some kind of dog-whistle. Either is bad. Either should disqualify one from public office (but sadly, doesn’t). I think it’s the latter, and it’s divisive politics at its scummiest that plays to the worst elements of the American conservative base.
But if you’re looking for a quote like “Let’s all get Liberal Hunting Licences – No bag limit!” I’m afraid that won’t be forthcoming.