The Guardian
Opinion
The royal wedding versus the American presidential election
William and Kate or Obama and Mitt Romney: which couple will win the battle of the bores?
By Hadley Freeman
It's repulsively expensive, anachronistically cumbersome and massively overexposed, and people are already bored with it. It is, of course, the American presidential election. It is also, of course, the royal wedding. But which country is pulling its shebang off with more class? Yeah, baby – it's a national ritual-off!
Is there any acknowledgement that the country is currently in the economic dumps?
Election: No way, dude! Nul points.
Wedding: Kinda. Half a point.
Just as people in the UK are having to make do without things like, say, their local library, Kate Middleton will bravely forsake the horse and carriage on her special day for a car. She also would like to suggest that everyone eats cake instead of bread.
In America, it is taken for granted that presidential elections are like designer handbags in that their escalating cost is unimpeded by inconveniences such as the state of the economy. Thus, each presidential campaign this year is predicted to cost at least $1bn, which no one seems to think is unreasonable. No, not even the Republicans, who two weeks ago nearly shut down the government over the $317m in funding to Planned Parenthood, an amount that doubtless will be raised in one evening at a candidate fundraiser dinner. But then, to be fair, it will cost about a trillion dollars to make the party's most plausible candidate, Mitt Romney, even vaguely interesting. So really, a billion dollars shows recession-friendly restraint.
This is a perfect example of that good ol' American attitude known as NGAD, or "not giving a damn", versus the British tendency towards HHUFC, or "half-hearted and ultimately fruitless cravenness". For example, this weekend Obama suffered a "Gordon" (there's your legacy, ex-PM!), when he forgot that he was still miked up and was overheard by the press being less than non-partisan about certain Republicans. Let us not rehash the humiliating spectacle involving a defiant Gillian Duffy and an emasculated politician, as we all got to re-live it last week in a re-run that was, incredibly, even more pathetic and pointless than the original – ain't it always the way with sequels?
Obama, on the other hand, responded by telling the press to go screw themselves or, in politician-speak, by getting his press secretary to say that the president "was not at all embarrassed", and the story duly died. In this instance, the US attitude of NGAD looks canny. But in the case of spending billions on an election in the middle of an economic crisis? Not so much.
Is anyone using the occasion to promote a reality TV show?
Election: Yes. One point.
Wedding: Possibly. Half a point.
It is generally believed that Donald Trump – the Charlie Sheen of US politicians, replete with ravings, paranoia and general irritation – is using the election to promote Celebrity Apprentice, over which he presides like an oddly coiffed Jabba the Hutt. This is in keeping with an American tradition that began when Abraham Lincoln admitted he'd only run for president to promote his appearance in Big Brother, The Pioneer Years.
No one from the wedding team has yet announced their TV ambitions, but surely at least 72 of the 17,000 designers the British media have randomly cited as the person making Kate Middleton's wedding dress will get a regular fashion slot on Daybreak.
Is there a theme song yet?
Election: Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Michele Bachmann tribute song, You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet, by Toots Sweet. One point.
Wedding: George Michael and his version of Stevie Wonder's You and I. Three points for George's adorable tweet about the song: "Love to know if Will and Kate have heard it but i've lost my phone (which I tend to do on a regular basis)."
Will there be a drug dealer and friend of a sex offender at the event?
Election: None that have been specified yet but Trump has no doubt seen a few among Obama's friends. Zero points.
Wedding: One on either side of the aisle. And we're not even including Prince Harry's friends. Two points.
Have any of the women involved been attacked personally by the rightwing press through criticism of their clothes?
Election: Yup, Michelle Obama, who dares to wear non-American designers occasionally, proving that she is a traitor.
Wedding: Yup, Carole Middleton, who dares to exist and not be royal, meaning that her clothes will always be terrible. One point each.
And the winner is . . . the wedding! Congratulations, Britain: Martin Amis may claim that you're "a power of the second or third order", but when it comes to pomp and circumstance, you're still number one.
Stranger than fiction
There is much to ponder in the saga of Greg Mortenson and his possibly not wholly true "memoir", Three Cups of Tea. But most of all, I question his defence. Mortenson insists that there is nothing wrong with his facts, rather that "the Balti language has only a vague concept of time", a claim that actually has only a vague concept of accuracy, according to the Economist.
Instead, Mortenson should have followed the example of American senator Jon Kyl. Kyl recently claimed that "well over 90% of what Planned Parenthood does" is abortion-related. This number, it transpired, was pulled out of Kyl's backside when the actual figure of 3% didn't suit his argument. His office then huffily insisted that Kyl's statement was "not intended to be factual".
Now we're talking! Mortenson could have saved himself a lot of trouble if he'd said from the start that his book was "not intended to be factual" or was, to use the literary shorthand, "fiction".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/20/royal-wedding-versus-presidential-election
No comments:
Post a Comment