Anyone who has seen a movie preview is familiar with the phrase, “in a world.”
A voiceover of epic commanding basso introduces the preview we’re seeing. He says,
“In a world … where the craze of brutal struggle … means living… yet another day!”
So I made up that particular line, but you can probably recall that voice. It’s saying, in whatever words apply to that film, that this is a movie. The rules of entertainment apply. The idea being that you’ll accept a different context and set of rules inside the theatre than you would outside of it, in real life.
On matters DC, that’s often what the media does. In the worlds, exciting and mundane, of The Capitol and The Oval, they offer us the context of the theatre.
It’s within this set of ‘movie rules’ that most understand and consume political news. It’s thick jowly men in the smoky back rooms of yore, it’s ambitious young communications directors sending tweets of today. It’s the dark secrets and the sleeplessness of the wicked, and the ample coffee and other beverages that connect it all. Battle as entertainment. In a world…of versus.
Since I first worked in Washington I’ve watched the development of the versus narrative. I’ve heard media through its bullhorn. I try to tease out the structures it uses to tease me. I say, so that’s how you structured that story? As a duality?
But what if the two sides agree on 95% of the issue, and just differ on a few methods? Why does it still look like a boxing match between big red and blue gloves?
Now most in media aren’t doing anything wrong. They’re providing a narrative, a rationale, a reason why your heart or gut should care. They’re attaching meaning to what you are reading and enabling you to associate the words with your own experience. Within this ‘familiarized’ context, a reader is more easily convinced of a point.
A point’s more clearly defined in opposition to another one. Writers write about politics in a world of versus. And it’s not always Republican vs. Democrat.
Title: Ryan vs. Toomey http://bit.ly/jCCWTU (National Review Online)
Lede: Republicans choose sides on whether Medicare reform is politically feasible.
Are Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA)’s budget proposals, titled “Path to Prosperity” and “Restoring Balance” respectively, at odds with each other? No. They are presenting two different process methods toward the same greater objectives.
Yet the versus (the second word of the three word title) is followed by a lede of intrigue. Inferring a duel. In a world of jousting Celtic knights, or a rivalry brewing in an underground urban boxing ring. Over Medicare, of all things.
Entertaining? Yes. But is the context productive?
Please read Andrew Stiles’ piece, which is well done. But look at the title’s context and consider this. Both budget proposals seek to address rising debt and deficit. They do it in two similar ways, with Ryan focusing on a longer term and his expertise in Medicare alternatives, and Toomey on a shorter term with focus on tax code simplification. Both address spending, with Ryan using 2008 levels and Toomey a return to 2006 levels as a basis.
These are two well-thought versions of the same shade of red. Their differences and emphasis preferences will, we hope, spur productive discussion in each Chamber.
Why the versus? It’s structure. Plain and simple. Attention is granted to the loud grit of battles, not always to their quiet valor. The media knows this.
So they’ll mention that Ryan was attacked from the left for his ideas, and Toomey from the far right for his. The big question that’s now going on – so who is each guy fighting off? Could they be fighting, as the title implies, each other?
On the Democratic side, similar narratives emerge. While opinions differ within parties, many could be cast as healthy conversation on a vital issue. Instead, they are cast in dramatic, urgent language.
Our legislative entertainment is rarely about who is achieving consensus. Expressing beliefs but going the distance to solution. Seeing what’s right and not just what’s politically easy.
It will be a challenge for movements such as NoLabels, and the citizens that seek to comprise it, to step outside of the alluringly easy narrative of versus. Such messaging, however emotive, urgent or dualistic, contradicts the NoLabels declaration and introduces questions around its core efficiency of process power.
It hearkens back to barrages of political fundraising letters, advocating one candidate or side, not a new civility which transcends this, and thereby welcomes citizens who identify strongly as Republicans or as Democrats, yet first call themselves “Americans.”
