Lieberman is Not A Tragic Figure

Stoller asked if Lieberman was a tragic figure.

No. Lieberman isn't a tragic hero.

A classically tragic hero must have a nobleness or wisdom, and a discovery that is made by his own actions.  Oedipus searches out the root of his own problem.  On the other hand, Lieberman is oblivious to his flaw and is unwilling to talk to voters.

Now, Macbeth...  It was flawed political calculus that drove Macbeth to consciously kill Duncan.  This decision stands in contrast to Oedipus, who tried to avoid his fate, but failed.

Therefore, the Shakespearian tragedy presents the idea of a moral quandary by presenting a person who willingly does the wrong things.  

Lieberman's political calculus is deeply flawed. But is Joe like Macbeth and is dead wrong on purpose?  

I think not. That would be absurdist dark comedy.  But Lieberman is not tragi-comedy -- such would mean things will end well for Joe. They won't. Joe will never be loved again by his state or his party.

Joe might be a Samuel Beckett play. Endgame?

I tend to think Joe is in an after-school special where the stupid, mean jocks who run the school, string Joe (the geek) along  --  partly to mess with his mind and partly to make it look to the teachers like they're working a lot with a tutor.  

It's pathetic that the geek ever thinks the jocks would invite him to ride in their limo to the prom.

Why would Lieberman even waste time with the Bush jock frat-boys?  It's because the TV cameras that swarm around the proselytizing, chest-thumping GOP contribute to the uber-narrative of America - and he wants more than anything to be a key figure in that narrative.

He has fatally misread his place in history because he is losing his sense of the overall story. He thinks that the point-of-view our history changed with the rise of the radical right.

His flawed political calculus tells him that his best bet to a prominent place in Regnery Publishing's history books is to be a maverick. He wants to be what people think McCain is - he wants those TV cameras.

The heart of the problem is that it takes more courage to be loyal opposition and speak truth to power than it does to be "maverick" and side with corrupt power.

Therefore Lieberman's version of maverick is actually cowardice. He is a pathetic figure.

This is the narrative in which to cast Lieberman. What figures from pop culture are as pathetic, as egomaniacal, as cowardly and idiotic as Joe Lieberman?

Display:


Re: Lieberman is Not Tragic Figure (none / 0)

A comment in Stoller's diary would have been preferable to opening up a new diary. We are becoming like Dkos. Too many redundant diaries with 3 or 4 comments and then get pushed out of sight too fast. I would like to see some more diaries where prolonged discussions take place. I find myself repeating stuff again and again because of the redundant diaries leading to incomplete discussions.


by Pravin on Mon Jul 31, 2006 at 12:23:42 PM EST

Not really (none / 0)

I find myself repeating stuff again and again
Such as the word "again"?

Really, this diary is a snarky pseudo-Theatre crit look at Lieberman's Character Arc. Matt stresses that he's asking serious questions about Lieberman's resume.

I'm asking different questions about analogous archetypes.


John McCain is dishonest
by dereau on Mon Jul 31, 2006 at 04:36:42 PM EST

Re: Not really (none / 0)

Interesting.


by Matt Stoller on Tue Aug 01, 2006 at 01:19:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

no problem (none / 0)

You made me reexamine your entry and I guess it is sufficiently different in tone. I was just getting frustrated with the similar diaries proliferating here.


by Pravin on Mon Jul 31, 2006 at 05:05:48 PM EST

Re: no problem (none / 0)

Cool. But I don't think this kind of conversation is at all silly. Here's why. Narrative drives human paradigms. For most people to understand a human drama, the people involved need to be plugged into any of a number of archetypal stories.  Good guy - bad guy, underdog - bully, crazy man - medicine man...

There are only a few stories. Once a situation is laid out in ones mind in a certain archetype, it takes a great deal of creative energy to reconfigure the players and assign them new traits and expectations.

This is actual framing.  

Understanding an effective story with which to tell the story of your opponent so that it clicks in enough places to become too difficult for the opponent to "re-label" himself, is a major part of communication strategy.

Read Joseph Campbell and you'll see the power of telling a mythological story or conversely of explaining that your opponent is a pathetic, wretched figure. Plus, you can always roll off one assertion to another archetype label.  

If a debating opponent concedes that Bush is hapless, roll off and say that Rove and Cheney are like Wormtongue... of course, if you're audience would get the reference to Lord of the Rings.

But there's no need to go back far. It's better you don't. Most Americans won't understand what you mean if you say Bush is like the Mayor of Casterbridge. But they will if you say that he behaves like a spoiled brat weakling legacy frat dork who can't make Varsity so he becomes cheerleader.


John McCain is dishonest
by dereau on Tue Aug 01, 2006 at 07:50:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.