US presidential candidates' attempts to woo the youth are painful to watch
|
Version 0 of 1. As we get nearer to the actual election year in the US, as opposed to the endless preamble of the last 12 months, we must prepare ourselves for an unpalatable sight: that of politicians trying to ingratiate themselves with young people, and young people trying to be fun in the general direction of politicians. It’s a kind of two-way youthsplaining that, as far as I can tell, never works out well for anyone. “Do you consider yourself a feminist?” asked Lena Dunham of Hillary Clinton the other week, with a Shirley Temple-like combo of coyness and complete self-possession. “Yes, absolutely!” said Clinton and they both giggled, while the ghost of Mary Wollstonecraft shuddered violently and cancelled her subscription to Lenny. It’s not Dunham’s fault. Politicians have always been vulnerable to this kind of hideous encounter, to prove not only that they have multi-generational appeal, but that they can do a passing impression of a human being. Since nobody normal watches C-Span, they have to get out there and ham for the masses - something only Obama has ever managed to pull off with any dignity; his appearance with Zach Galifianakis on Between Two Ferns still stands as the most regular a politician has ever looked. Related: Joe Biden won't run for president – time to suck it up and support Hillary | Megan Carpentier From Dunham’s side of things, gratitude that Clinton agreed to appear in the first place probably unhinged her early on in the process. It’s an anomaly of online culture that, among the sea of hostile social-media exchanges, many start-up blogs, newsletters and podcasts are so stuck for high profile guests that when they finally get one, they’ll give Vanity Fair a run for its money in showing how close they can spoon with them. The tone of these encounters is also an age thing. Even among those who are only just leaving their 20s, like Dunham, there is, I suspect, an assumption that people under 30 have no capacity to absorb information that pertains to an earlier era, or doesn’t come wrapped in a lot of shrill exclamation. Politicians go along with this, as they go along with anything that guarantees an audience, and counter the young person’s revelation - there’s this thing called life, see - with the equally desperate and condescending: there’s this thing called politics. If anyone was above all this, you’d think it’d be Bernie Sanders; he seems to be above everything else. But no. When, last week, he appeared on Ellen dancing to “Burn Baby Burn”, the socialist revolution never looked further away. Senator Sanders gave a good speech about corporate greed, but was cut off by the ad-break and the need to get on with the main business of the interview: ascertaining what, if he was a flavor of Ben and Jerry’s, he’d like to be called (“Burn Baby Burn”), who his favorite member of One Direction is (“Harry? Harry”) and, of course, boxers or briefs? (I forget). Related: Hillary Clinton as a lifestyle brand? Don't roll your eyes too soon | Jessica Valenti I don’t mean to be a killjoy and suggest we have to focus exclusively on the issues. It can be revealing to have an opaque politician upended by a set of left-field questions. And sometimes, as with the original Tumblr that spawned Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s alter ego the Notorious RBG, an irreverent approach can be funny and inspired. Usually, however, the fun turns out to be obsequiousness by another name. The problem with youthsplaining is that it isn’t left-field at all; it adheres to strict conventions of wackiness laid down by lame kids’ TV presenters and taken up by adults with no better ideas about how to keep their audience watching. To some of Sanders’ responses Ellen replied gamely: “Good answer!” But for most of the interview, she looked like a lot of us felt watching her: as if she was dying inside. |