by
system failure
How you
present a prime minister in such a way that appears to be doing the
right thing, while in reality is doing the opposite? You try to
present him as strong, unbreakable, confident with himself. This was,
generally, the tactics of an old school of image makers, in order
some politics to gain public acceptance, or, in order to promote
specific politicians.
During the
first debate in TV's history, between John Kennedy and Richard Nixon
in September 1960, Kennedy had gained the impressions since, his
picture reaching the audience was much better than Nixon's. He
appeared fresh, much younger, answering all the questions straightly.
The debate was crucial for Kennedy's victory in the presidential
elections.
Many things
have changed since then. The image of "unwavering"
politician has been shifted to a more human personality, closer to
the image of the average citizen, by the new generations of image
makers. The new directions of image makers to politicians, included
more simplicity, more spontaneity, plenty of jokes, tactics which
made politicians more accessible and likeable and less distant.
Today,
things have changed so much that, the primary question as well as the
answer are totally different, in such a degree that, image makers
have been transformed into ... image breakers!
Therefore,
the question could be like this: How do you make a prime minister to
appear like he tries really hard to balance things, while doesn't
have too many options? And, the possible answer: You present him as
tired, like he's exhausted because he tries too much. And finally -
in the case of the Greek prime minister - through a small "mistake",
the camera catches him cursing his ... head and himself because he
confused words during a statement. What is more human than this? This
is something which almost everyone does when he's angry with himself.
What is the
message of a prime minister under the instructions of the image
breakers (ex - image makers), through this picture?
First,
"look, I'm one of you, I do what I can, do not expect miracles,
compromise with that and don't ask for more". To what should we
compromise? One might wonder. We should compromise with the "big
achievement" of reducing tax in bar-restaurant services in
August and after, which means, during the remaining part of the
tourist season, while at the same time, we must expect new taxes,
massive layoffs, privatizations, further cuts in wages and further
dissolve of the social state.
Second,
there are no secret deals behind the camera. What you will see, is
only a tired prime minister cursing himself.
Whether
cameraman's mistake was real or not, image breakers know very well
what they must do.
In the
United States, the case of the New York City mayoral candidate is
characteristic. What was left for the image breakers to do, when the
scandal had been exposed, was to break his image, and promote his
"extremely human" side and his natural, human passions. It
seems that they managed to gain sympathy for Anthony Weiner,
especially from the younger people because youngest generations are
more progressive in sexual matters and the corresponding "usage"
of social media. Also, in this case, whether the scandal had been
purposely exposed or not, image breakers knew very well what to do.
The
transformation degree of the image breakers, is an indication of the
disdain of politics today. Apart the fact that, most people know the
communicative tricks of the past, their basic philosophy has changed
since they accept rationally that things are what they are and
nothing can be done. Thus, people rationally accept that, big
interests are so powerful that, if someone wants to deal with them,
must be some kind of a superior being. Therefore, image breakers do
nothing more than to adapt to this thinking, continuously promoting
the human side of politicians and the corresponding message: "look,
there are no supermen, no saviors, we do what we can, compromise with
that and do not ask for more". In this way, a vicious circle is
created: the more this image is promoted, the more politics disdain
and reverse, thus, the more politics disdain, the more this image is
promoted.
In Greece,
the biggest slice of the electoral pie goes to Nea Dimokratia, the
Right-wing party of the governmental coalition. Nea Dimokratia is
turning mostly to the "rational" Right voters. The main
Left-wing party opposition, SYRIZA, follows at short distance. It is
remarkable that, despite the fact that SYRIZA's leader, Alexis
Tsipras, is much younger than Nea Dimokratia's leader and prime
minister Antonis Samaras, adopts accurately the communicative tactics
of the latter, concerning his image, while his rhetoric is totally
different, due to his Leftist ideology. This shows that, image is
playing a key role and that societies are not ready for radical
changes. Both Samaras and Tsipras, when they are not in parliament,
or, in open public speeches, where controversy is often intense, they
appear "extremely human", almost tired, speaking slow and
in a low voice.
Because what
matters most, is the picture that reaches audience, which must be
compatible to the present common sense, leading to the present
"rationalism" and not to the system's subversion. Societies
today, not only afraid revolutions, but also politicians who dare to
speak through a deeply radical language, and, the corresponding image
related to them.
Is this
truly about image breakers' new tactics or something more terrifying
happens? Is the tired face of politicians a reality? Is this a proof
of the total eclipse of the political dream and surrender, without
terms, to the "rationalism" of our days? Maybe it's about
all these things together.
Comments
Post a Comment