This past January, I wrote a blogpost titled "Symbols of American Institutions". My primary thesis was that American politics uses pop culture phenomena as crutches to "market" landmark policy, which ultimately results in voters making important decisions the same way they make clothing purchases, rather than selecting candidates who align with their personal ethical codes. I realized a few weeks ago how alarmingly prescient that essay truly was, and so I wanted to revisit it today with my additional notes and commentary. I've pulled a few key quotes and will use those as guiding prompts in this discussion, but I know how self-important it must seem to quote myself, so please forgive me in advance.
"To see and support Hamilton as a work of art in 2016 was, in essence, to support the Democratic party in their plight to beat Donald Trump. And in hindsight, this should have been no surprise. Obama had set the precedent of being a culture-driven president, publishing his favorite books and movies each season. Here was a well-read man who could quote recent Pulitzer winners, here is a play about a Founding Father. It was a Venn Diagram that appealed to the educated electorate, perhaps the biggest target voting bloc for left-leaning candidates. "
My golly, this quote covers so much ground. On a slightly facetious note, I chuckled audibly at my early mention of Venn Diagrams -- perhaps Kamala Harris drew this exact image when launching her campaign? But more seriously, this "Venn Diagram" plainly reveals the Democratic Party's concerted effort to pander to the pseudo-intellectual liberal elites; and it is this very pandering that drove J.D. Vance to radicalization, drove Republicans to hunt for someone, anyone who was decidedly non-establishment, and then drove blue-collar and rural American workers to vote for him en masse.
With the Olympics ongoing, I've thought quite a bit recently about the United States' cultural hegemony as a weapon of colonialization. When my Indian extended family asked, "Who is Simone Biles?" in response to my excitement about her return to the podium, I realized just how little the rest of the world cares about the phenomenon we here in the States consider to be "global", a fact which reveals quite a bit about our perception of our position on the world stage. But re-reading the above quote, I wonder if this weapon is now being used to sow internal division -- those that get it, or the liberals, against those that don't, the conservatives. The so-called "educated electorate" uses this (arguably imagined) superiority to speak of blue-collar and rural American workers as though they're zoo animals, strange medical marvels whose psyches must be evaluated from a clinical perspective because they're just oh-so-different.
I'm not entirely sure if there's a solution to this problem, because elitist or not, I'd like our president to be well-educated and articulate. I'd like them to quote Pulitzer Prize winners because ultimately, having read the best thoughts humanity has ever had can't possibly hurt someone's ability to handle international affairs and crises. But I am also beginning to see how this cultural and intellectual elitism is more than just snobby, but alienating. What I failed to mention in my earlier blogpost was that Hamilton, like all theater, was shockingly expensive -- tickets at the height of Miranda-mania would sell out in under a minute (to mostly celebrities and other well-connected individuals), despite their exorbitant pricing at $400 a seat. To see and support the play in 2016 was inherently a privilege. To launch marketing campaigns using its soundtrack was automatically exclusionary, as was pontificating about America's current political climate using Alexander Hamilton's personal life as a metaphor.
Perhaps one day I'll write something about the long-lasting impact of Hamilton and Obama on popular culture. Both are figures that profoundly benefitted the time they existed within, but also set up catastrophic spiraling for the Trump-era years to come, and that dichotomy is rather unexplored given how fascinating it really is.
"[Hillary Clinton as Barbie is] an unconventional metaphor, but one that sticks -- as we enter another election season where a vitriolic, dangerous man threatens to ascend the presidency, we're reminded of the last time we let this happen. And it was The Patriarchy's Fault."
"As stupid as this sounds, creating these subconscious associations between widely beloved, iconic pieces of culture to a particular political campaign is a surefire way to mobilize and make impassioned young voters, particularly those that are jaded and fatigued from the past eight years."
Babe, you were so close! But the piece of culture driving Harris's 2024 campaign isn't Barbie, but Brat. I have remarkably little else to say regarding this, because at the risk of sounding arrogant, I completely nailed it in my original thesis. Young voters aren't just mildly amused by the Kamala Harris-themed Charli xcx remixes, and they aren't just casually tuned into her quirky laughter and branding campaigns. Gen Z has become "coconut-pilled" with a pace and fervor I truly haven't seen on the left since Obama, absolutely overjoyed that this time, their vote won't be towards the "lesser of two evils," but someone they actually are excited to support. And frankly, this surge in popularity is almost entirely driven by the meme-ification of the Harris campaign. In stark contrast to Donald Trump and Joe Biden, Kamala Harris is in on the joke, turning her X banner chartreuse green with outward, overt glee, and making mocked-up "Wanted" posters accusing Trump of being "weird".
The most impressive part of all this is just how "sticky" this metaphor is. While she could be using fear to drive voters to the polls, like Biden did prior to his withdrawing from the race, she has her finger on the pulse: the girls don't want to be so "burdened by what has been", they want to dance! They want to wear hideous colors in an act of radical micro-feminism, and be the It Girl alongside Julia Fox! BUT (and this is a very big caveat), they're not vapid. They're not stupid. They're not silly or airheaded. They're capable of critical thinking, and aware of their positions in society as potential mothers, as women leading the next wave of feminism, as professionals in competitive, toxic workplaces. Harris represents this perfectly: she's unabashed in her joy, but is confidently addressing the very real stakes of this election. And by fitting so perfectly within pop culture and politics, she makes herself a fixture in almost every space, becoming unavoidable and ubiquitous. (Albeit at risk of overexposure.) If executed well, it's a great campaign strategy.
"Which is my way of saying: a lot is on the ballot this year, from resolving Israel-Palestine and Russo-Ukraine tensions to protecting uncensored education in the south. However, I'd almost argue that none of that will really sway any voter, at least not one that is truly currently independent. You know what just might, though? An I'm Just Ken-themed advertisement. An appeal to the new wave of feminism that has been inaugurated by this plastic doll, no matter how problematic that brand of feminism really is."
"We evaluate politics and media with the same, surface-level sense of removedness that makes it all nothing but a PR ploy. And if you thought Barbie had a good marketing team, just wait till you see what Biden does with a blush suit."
I want to close by saying that this is actually not a ringing Harris endorsement. I've admittedly gotten so much joy out of the recent slew of Kamala memes, and generally find this new tone and pace of the Democratic campaign to be refreshing, but my original essay was notably not an encouragement of this trend, but a critique of it: I don't want politics to be determined by who can pull off chartreuse green suits the best. I don't want CNN to dedicate several days to dissecting Charli xcx's tweet instead of Harris's proposed policies. Although the pop culture-politics-industrial complex happens to be entertaining me this time, it's not lost on me how quickly those tides can turn. I write about this to highlight it, both for my readers and for myself. I'm an unironic romantic when it comes to the power of pop culture to influence, but we can't get distracted: the Billboard Top 100 won't end wars, won't give women rights. To quote the internet one last time, we mustn't lose the plot.
Comments
Post a Comment