The media abuse heaped on movie icon Clint Eastwood for his unexpected performance at the Republican National Convention was one more link in the chain of blatant and unprofessional anti-Republican bias that will surely continue right up to election day. Eastwood, you recall, memorably held a one-way dialogue with the President as the invisible occupant of an empty chair. The pundits and columnists didn’t like Eastwood taking on their hero, so they trashed his method of doing it; they were personally offended by his message (which competent, objective journalists, now as rare as Ivory-billed Woodpeckers, would be able to put aside to give fair commentary), so they insulted Clint: they called him old (naturally; if he were fat, they would call him that, too); they called him out his depth, they called him befuddled and inept. The fact was, however, that it was they who were out of their depth, and they, not Eastwood, who embarrassed themselves.
Eastwood wasn’t giving a speech. The narrow, politics-obsessed, culturally ignorant media pundits only comprehend a few forms of communication, and the language of performance and theater is as alien to most of them as Klingon. Theatrical communication is vivid and plants seeds in the imagination that bloom in unexpected ways; it links words to images and metaphors, and communicates in multiple dimensions. Many performers, at least the few whose left-ward tilt doesn’t overwhelm their professional skills and judgment, understood exactly what Clint was doing. Even semi-comic Bill Maher, a truth-teller when he isn’t calling Republicans names, saluted Eastwood for a bold and effective routine. Maher got it. And despite the venom and ridicule hurled at Eastwood, so did the culture.
When New Yorker cover artist Barry Blitt sought a funny and evocative image to represent President Obama’s slack and unengaged performance during the first presidential debate, he chose an empty chair. There will be more empty chair allusions in the coming weeks—there have already been quite a few—and there is a reason for that. Eastwood’s theatrical methods made a deeper impression than all the time-worn, cliché -filled speeches and convention folderol. Of course it did. But bias, as always, made critics stupid and inept. Now, a little over a month from the conventions, what of them does anyone remember? I remember that a Democratic convention that was about the dignity and freedom of women (and the joys of abortion) featured a salute to negligent homicide perp Ted Kennedy (without any mention of Mary-Jo, of course) and highlighted a speech by serial harasser and adulterer Bill Clinton—I’ll never forget that. I remember that both parties disgraced democracy by openly defying majority voice votes on their convention floors. I vaguely remember a low-energy, unspecific speech by Mitt Romney, and a tired, “let’s get this over with” standard issue Obama speech. None of these, however, approach the vitality of Clint’s metaphor in the cultural conversation, and it was no accident. He created an image that had the resonance of truth; that’s what performers, rather than politicians, do. The media attacked him for it, but Clint’s empty chair image is part of the campaign discussion now. When the New Yorker cover hit the news stands, he and his art were vindicated, and the news media pundits, columnists and hacks were shown up, once again, as the biased incompetents they are.
I hope it made Clint’s day.
I know it made mine.
[You can read a text of Clint’s remarks here, and see the YouTube clip here.]
__________________________________
Graphic: Huffington Post
Ethics Alarms 
I personally think it was a touch bizarre, and could have been improved by rehearsal. You could tell he was improvising, and that gave it a rambling character that undermined his point. He also would have been helped by at least simulating a civil Obama, in my opinion.
Bizarre–check. Improvisation is a high wire act, and earns appreciation from those in the know by the attempt—I’ve seen the Second City Troupe crash and burn; sure, rehearsal helps, but spontaneity, danger and surprise are sacrificed. It’s a choice, that’s all. I’m not saying it was perfect by any means, but did it accomplish more than having Hollywood cheesecake like Scarlet Johannsen enthusing about reproductive freedom? You bet.
Q.E.D. Brilliantly spoken commentary.
Appreciation for the attempt check. When it crashed and burned though, it crashed and burned. What exactly did it it accomplish?
It didn’t crash and burn. It was memorable, and established a useful theme, image and meme for GOP use. It will follow Obama around until the election, and perhaps beyond.
What useful theme, image, and meme was created? Note, the theme, image, and meme must represent reality.
Clint would have been praised if he had done this same routine at the Democratic Convention and Romney had been his target.
Of course. Oh, they would have laughed, and laughed, and pronounced it “brilliant.” Chis Matthews would have laughed for days. No doubt about it—the double standard could hardly be more obvious.
The assumed double standard could hardly be more obvious? Seriously?
In response to Bill’s supposition? Sure seriously. Do you doubt it? Did the mainstream media make any criticism, for example, of Granholm’s insane performance?
I haven’t watched it, but from what I’ve seen, it was considered crazy by the mainstream media, but crazy in an over the top expression, not anything else. It’s not a valid comparison.
This is what really happens when truth is actually spoken to power. All the silly pretense of the mainstream hacks stroking the powerful and pretending they’re outrageous is exposed for what it is. One of the most outrageous examples, Bill Mahr himself, got it.
I don’t see how the cover vindicates Clint Eastwood in the least. Eastwood had a rambling conversation with chimerical positions of the president. Now, the chair is being used to show that Obama was bad enough during the debate that he might as well have not been there.
Eastwood’s idea of using the chair as a stand in would have been okay if Obama’s actual positions were laid bare. Instead, Eastwood attacked imaginary positions of the President. The imaginary positions of an imaginary person is why he was attacked.
Read Clint’s remarks and tell me where he inaccurately cites Obama’s record, to the extent that he does. Not closing Gitmo? Scheduling the terrorist trial in NYC? Announcing the pull date in Afghanistan in advance? Unemployment? It is not, essentially, a substantive speech, as I said. The core is the end…
“I would just like to say something, ladies and gentlemen.
Something that I think is very important. It is that, you, we
— we own this country. We own it. It is not you owning it, and not
politicians owning it. Politicians are employees of ours.
And — so — they are just going to come around and beg
for votes every few years. It is the same old deal. But I just
think it is important that you [the audience] realize, that you’re the best in
the world. Whether you are a Democrat or Republican or whether
you’re libertarian or whatever, you are the best. And we should
not ever forget that. And when somebody does not do the job, we
got to let them go.”
Let’s go point by point for clint:
* Obama hasn’t done enough for the economy: Due to the republican’s blocking stimulous…one of the few things the government can do to lower the unemployment rate. Obama has done more than what the republican’s have wanted him to do.
* Obama/the democrats aren’t strongly interested in fixing the economy: Baseless assertion.
* Obama doesn’t deal with broken promises: Just…what?
* Obama didn’t close Gitmo: He was blocked by the republicans.
* Obama only wanted to close Gitmo as an excuse: an excuse for what?
* Trying terrorists in NYC is a stupid idea: It’s not. Trying terrorists is the right thing to do.
* Obama gave a target date for pulling out of Afganistan: False. Bush did. Obama just stuck to it.
* It’s bad to weigh an issue before acting: Just insanely stupid.
* Attack on size of air force one: That’s the same for everyone
* Attack on talking about student loans: they actually are a problem, you know.
* President is not ecological because he follows the same procedures as all presidents do: Just silly.
* Attack on President for claiming to own the country: Out of left field.
Throw in the random comments about how his invisible Obama is just cursing, and this was clearly an insane caricature of Obama’s positions.
With the exception of the implication that Obama thinks he owns the country, the quoted “core” is pretty good. If someone hasn’t done their job, get rid of them. Unfortunately, everything before that is a false caricature.
Talk about warped characterizations:
* Clint: Now that is something to cry for because that is a disgrace, a national disgrace, and we haven’t done enough, obviously — this
administration hasn’t done enough to cure that. Whenever interest they have is not strong enough, and I think possibly now it may
be time for somebody else to come along and solve the problem.
Exactly true. When the employment situation was the biggest crisis, Obama focused his attentions on the health care debacle. It is accurate to say his interest wasn’t strong enough—he was more interested in health care, obviously. Clint also could ahve said that his priorities were out of whack.
* Clint: So, Mr. President, how do you handle promises that you have made when you were running for election, and how do you handle them?
I mean, what do you say to people? Do you just — you know– I
know — people were wondering — you don’t — handle that. OK.
You get that he’s talking and listening to the chair, right? You aren’t seriously arguing that Obama has achieved anything approaching what he promised, are you? Increased respect abroad? Closing Gitmo? Closing the deficit (in real terms)? Bringing the country together? Immigration reform? Actually leading rather than just talking about it?
* Re Gitmo: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Media/obama-plan-close-guantanamo-stuck-political-legal-limbo/story?id=10752684#.UHMeRK6QSSm If you make a promise, “the mean republicans won’t let me” just means “I don’t have the political stones and skills to do what I said I would do.” And that is Obama, in a nutshell.
* Trying terrorists: decent arguments on both sides. Trying them in NY city? Idiotic. And that’s why Holder backed down. Clint is right.
* The 2014 date is Bush’s? That not what Obama’s own Sec. of Defense said, in defending that date after the debates. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/27/leon-panetta-mitt-romney-afghanistan-war-obama_n_1548765.html
* You are mischaracterizing Clint’s lawyer riff. He’s talking about Obama’s well-documented diddling, delaying decision-making “leadership” style. It got soldiers killed in Afghanistan; it got people killed in Libya. It’s the whole “leading from behind” nonsense. (You can’t lead from behind.)
1) Obama’s interest in the economy.
So, after the stimulous passed, which did help the economy and continues to help the economy, he allowed it to work instead of micromanaging it? What a horrible president.
Obama did work on the economic factors as needed, like extending benefits. That you don’t like the things he did doesn’t mean he wasn’t considering the economy and actively working on it when appropriate.
The characterization only works if the economy isn’t actually getting better.
2) The chair comment
I get what he was doing with the chair: He was caricaturing the president to make him look bad. Clint thought he was engaging with the actual positions and actions of the president. It’s funny because the stand in imaginary president was given imaginary positions.
3) Promises and obstructionism.
You still are sticking to your belief that externalities don’t matter. It’s idiotic.
3a) Increased respect abroad.
Check. You saw how Romney has been lambasted everytime he mentions foreign policy right?
3b) Closing Gitmo
The President can’t override congress. All campaign promises are subject to that.
3c) Deficit.
Again, it’s less than before. Also, this promise was made before the recession was known. The changed baseline needs to be taken into account.
3d) Immigration reform.
Blocked again by congress, but he did make progress here with his executive order.
4) Afghanistan.
Point taken. The exact date isn’t Bush’s, but the general withdrawl timeline is.
5) Lawyering
I’m not mischaracterizing anything. That you also think consideration is dithering and delaying just brings my point home more. Determining the right course before rushing into action is a quality of a leader.
1) Obama’s interest in the economy….
The characterization only works if the economy isn’t actually getting better.
I don’t know how you figure THAT, It’s the slowest recovery in history, anemic, and at rsik of a double-dip recession. The recovery would have been as fast–or faster—if Obama had been replaced with…well, an empty chair.
2) …I get what he was doing with the chair: He was caricaturing the president to make him look bad. Clint thought he was engaging with the actual positions and actions of the president. It’s funny because the stand in imaginary president was given imaginary positions.
The positions were generalized and simplified, but I wouldn’t say they were imaginary.
3) Promises and obstructionism.You still are sticking to your belief that externalities don’t matter. It’s idiotic.
No, honestly, tgt, your position is wishfully naive. An aspiring leader promises to stop the tides, and is given the position he seeks. Then he says, gee, I couldn’t stop the tides because of the moon’s gravity. Well, too damn bad. Don’t make promises you don’t have the skills, power or knowledge to keep. There is no secret in DC that Obama won’t deal with the messy process of politicking and negotiating—he’s lousy at it, so he can’t get anything done. I heard Sen Coburn, one of the genuinely smart and rational Republican leaders, say that he hasn’t seen or spoken to Obama in 18 months. Disgraceful
The argument that the job is beyond him is not a justification for Obama making people believe it wasn’t.
3a) Increased respect abroad. Check. You saw how Romney has been lambasted everytime he mentions foreign policy right?
The chair has absolutely nothing to do with Romney. That’s a dodge. I have no idea whether Romeny will be more successful. He can’t possibly be weaker, however.
3b) Closing Gitmo
The President can’t override congress. All campaign promises are subject to that.
Effective, transformation Presidents persuade Congress. Responsible leaders don’t make promises they can’t keep. The States also blocked the relocation of Gitmo prisoners, and that was entirely predictable. Either Obama was naive, or he was laying, or he wasn’t up to fulfilling the checks his mouth was cashing. What’s the 4th explanataion?
3c) Deficit. Again, it’s less than before. Also, this promise was made before the recession was known. The changed baseline needs to be taken into account.
Halved does not equal “less.” And the debt keeps growing.
3d) Immigration reform.
Blocked again by congress, but he did make progress here with his executive order.
Show me what proposal from the White House was “blocked.” Bush had a genuine, formal, immigration reform proposal. Not enforcing the law is not a “proposal.”
4) Afghanistan.
Point taken. The exact date isn’t Bush’s, but the general withdrawal timeline is.
Agreed.
5) Lawyering
I’m not mischaracterizing anything. That you also think consideration is dithering and delaying just brings my point home more. Determining the right course before rushing into action is a quality of a leader.
Well, yeah—it it’s timely, and if it’s really “right.”
1) Even though it has worked, and far outstripped the recovery everywhere else in the world, it wasn’t fast enough for you.
You also claim the policy’s have made things worse, while we’ve seen that the actual policies you’ve supported actually have made things worse for other countries. If you wilfully ignore reality, you might as well be Rep. Broun.
2) The “generalized and simplified” positions don’t match reality.
3) Either you are improperly judging on results instead of process, or you’ve indicted Obama based on something that equally indicts every presidential candidate. I brought up the baseball metaphor previously, but I’ll do it again here. You judge pitchers on wins instead of actual representations of their quality, like WHIP.
3a) My point was that Obama’s positions have led to much greater respect than the republican positions.
3b) See above. You just indicted all presidential candidates.
3c) The recession is why it wasn’t halved. I was responding to your claim that it wasn’t actually lessened. Unless you misdefine (real terms of lessening), this was met. Your jump to the debt is moving the goalposts and a strawman, and wasn’t part of Eastwood’s speach or Obama’s promises.
3d) The Dream Act. Well, that was simple. Also, choosing to target more important issues with prosecution than illegals who were brought over as kids and have worked like upstanding citizens is not a proposal, but it is progress on immigration, and that’s all you asked for. It was easily satisfied.
4) So we’re in agreement that Eastwood’s attack was unwarranted then, right?
5) Yup. Eastwood though, with the spiel on lawyers, was clearly arguing that deliberation is wrong. He said you shouldn’t look at all sides of a problem.
I like Mr. Eastwood and I thought his routine was funny. However, it made me a little uncomfortable at times. It brought me back to a memory of a relative who was suffering from dementia who happened to be about Clint’s age. The relative talked to empty chairs the same way Clint did on stage. The portrayal about Mr. Obama suggesting Clint to do obscene things to himself didn’t sit well with me either. Then to defend a serial womanizer, when you judge Mr. Clinton to be worse and then some, seems to me a little biased in your views of ethics of famous politicians and celebrities. You have said many times that Mr. Clinton used his position to sexually harass Ms. Lewinsky. We don’t know for sure but how does anyone know that Mr. Eastwood hasn’t done the same with his young fellow women actors? Would he lie to keep his reputation? I don’t know. Possibly. I believe Mr. Clinton should have resigned after he had perjured himself while president. But Mr. Romney has perjured himself as well with his work record with Bain after he left to work with the Olympics. He claimed he had nothing to do with Bain after he left. When, in fact, he traveled back for board meetings.
Mr. Romney has flip-flopped on so many issues. I don’t know what to expect of him if he were to become president. Other presidents have said one thing and done another. You know this. Other presidents have done things after the fact. To blame the current president for the mess we are still fighting to get out of isn’t fair. The current congress has a responsibilty as well. I expected more from the people elcted in 2010. They promised they would help move the economy and the job situation. They haven’t pulled their weight either. Many still say Mr.Clinton wasn’t responsible for the economy in the late 90s because of having a Republican congress. If that is true then Mr. Reagan can’t take credit for the economy in the 80s.
I could have done without Clint’s jokes suggesting insults from the President, yes. It was improvise; I bet Clint second-guessed that one too.
Clint is an actor, Bill Clinton is an impeached President. Clint’s private life is irrelevant to his profession, and his reception at the convention. Clint was a performer performing—if I hire a singer for a wedding, I couldn’t care less about adulterous relationships. Clinton’s conduct was workplace harassment, national business, severely disrupting to the nation, and renders him unqualified to be presented as an icon at a convention honoring women’s rights
The “impeached” descriptor of Clinton does not belong in your statement. It’s not valid marker. The distinction is between president abusing authority and actor abusing authority.
You have also just said that performers can do whatever they want without consequences. All conventions should clearly be filled with entertainers. They’re attack dogs that the audience believes, but they’re not held to any standard of responsibility.
How did the actor abuse authority? Clint cheated on a couple of his significant others. That has very little to do with what Clinton did, or why it matters.
Performers are performers, and their message and the performance is what matters. If Clint made it clear he was there as just a citizen and Republican (which would be impossible), I’d entertain a different standard.
How did the actor abuse authority? Clint cheated on a couple of his significant others. That has very little to do with what Clinton did, or why it matters.
A famous actor/director and people in his movies. If he doesn’t have power, nobody does. Anyway, my main point there was that you used an inappropriate qualifier on Clinton. I agree that Clinton and Eastwood are not in the same ballpark and Clinton is much worse. I thought that would be obvious when I corrected the comparison.
Performers are performers, and their message and the performance is what matters. If Clint made it clear he was there as just a citizen and Republican (which would be impossible), I’d entertain a different standard.
So, you are saying that they have no responsibility to truth or fairness, despite the affect they have on the audience. If that’s the case, then it would be a complete breach of ethics to allow any of them to perform at any Republican sponsored or Democrat-sponsored event.