I have a longstanding weakness as a sociologist of media. There are often developments in media popular culture that I know are important, and to which I know I should pay close attention, but I just can’t stomach to read, listen or watch, leading me to be out of the loop. It started with the celebrity gossip in the supermarket scandal sheets. I could skim People magazine only with great difficulty. I remember my dismay when I did review (there were not enough words to say read) the celebrity treatment of Lech Walesa in which it was hard to discern why he was the subject of such close attention. I hit a severe watchers block when it came to the TV program Dallas. Then there were the worlds of Talk Radio and Reality TV. One of the biggest errors of my scholarly life was not paying close attention to the news craze about the OJ Simpson trial, when lack of patience with the silliness of “all OJ all the time” led me to overlook the importance of the racial politics of that media circus. I compensate for my low tolerance for junk by reading up, learning from scholars who reported on and analyzed what I had avoided. From the classic by Ien Ang, Watching Dallas, to Josh Gamson’s telling Freaks Talk Back.

But I am now proud of myself. I have finally followed a TV Reality Show from beginning to end, watching the Republican primary debates. All the elements are there, most apparent in the rise and fall of Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain and New Gingrich, each a worthy contestant, while an extremely unlikely President.

Bachmann gained limited attention playing in Iowa state fair, a local girl with a solid record of absurd assertions in and outside of the Halls of Congress, running for re-election and to be President of the United States.

Rick Perry seemed to be the charmed candidate until he opened his mouth and little or nothing came out during the debates, a promising star chosen from central casting, but just couldn’t act.

Acting was the strong forte of Cain and Gingrich. Cain knew little about his main issue, the economy other than a simple and appealing slogan. 999 the answer to any and all problems. Once he became the leading not Romney his ignorance became too much even for Republican primary voters, who have been trained by Fox to not pay much attention to inconvenient facts.

Gingrich, on the other hand, played the role of the man who knew too much. He was the master of dogmatic assertion, had a multitude of formed opinions, often in contradiction with each other, could think on his feet with dazzling speed and was a master of appealing to the prejudices of his audience. He started by limiting his demagoguery to the media and Obama, “the greatest food stamp President,” using racism, Islamophobia and parochialism in a way that the primary voters broadly approved. But then in the tradition of McCarthy, he turned on his Republican competition with fatal results.

Romney successfully fought back last night. But please note, the debate was not about substance but form, and the studio audience which bolstered Gingrich in South Carolina, turned against him last night when Romney put in a credible performance. He had a new debating coach in preparation for the season’s finale and he showed himself to be an able student.

The show is over. Newt Gingrich, the last not-Romney standing, was defeated. Mitt won. He won the Reality Show, that is. The race for the nomination is not yet decided. It is pretty clear that Romney will collect the plurality of delegates to the convention, but a combination of Paul, Santorum and Gingrich, still, may block him from a clean victory. There may be real politics at the nominating convention for the first time in decades.

And while the show is over, what it has concealed is not, the real debate in the Republican Party: the tension between fundamental commitments to the free market and to conservative values. Paul and Santorum work out the tension in opposing ways, with Paul emphasizing the market, Santorum, values. Romney tries to fudge the difference without the personal charm of a Reagan or the demagogic force of a Gingrich. Romney showed some previously unseen talents last night, but I wonder how he will play with a real political opponent, with a competing political vision. Such a debate will be more interesting than Reality TV, which still turns me off.

I am reliably informed that Deliberately Considered is not the first website that Republican operatives turn to, and I have little interest in stalking these worthies, at least without a Newt Gingrich-level consulting contract. However, I do follow the Republican nomination demolition derby with skeptical amusement, awaiting the Santorum boomlet and wondering if, by some Mormon miracle, Jon Huntsman might be the last man standing. More likely is that Republicans will find themselves with a set of fatally-damaged goods.

What has been most notable about the current Republican contenders is who has chosen not to run. These are politicians who have avoided the injurious process that constitutes what we term the American democratic process. Significant figures such as Mike Huckabee, Haley Barbour, Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan, John Thune, Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie, Jim DeMint, Marco Rubio, and Jeb Bush (!) – and, for comic relief, Sarah and The Donald – have all determined that they should watch this unreality show from afar. While one – even a Republican one – might not embrace all of these possibilities, several compare favorably to the current field.

Some commentators, such as Howard Megdal of Salon.com, speculate that Republicans can save themselves from themselves if none of the announced candidate were to win, and for Republicans to retreat to the once common outcome of a brokered convention in which through negotiation wise men anointed a candidate. Will we see a convention of the sort that through a night of cigar smoke gave birth to Warren Gamaliel Harding on the tenth ballot? Or the one that selected Woodrow Wilson on the 46^th ballot? With the Republican commitment to proportional awarding of delegates, if the current candidates remain in the race, it is likely that no candidate will gain a majority of delegates, and the decision will be made at their late August convention in Tampa, Florida with delegates eventually released from their commitments. The gift that Republicans can hope for late summer is a collection of losers.

The question is not who would have the greatest chance to triumph over the bruised and battered incumbent, but rather whether the idea of a brokered convention – three ballots or 103 – will benefit democracy. I speak for the affirmative. American democracy – in both parties – is now turned on its head by a promiscuous effusion of popular involvement. The voters have their say – and should properly have their say – in the general election, but the voters are not the party. Or they shouldn’t be. Democracy should depend upon several levels of expertise. Political choices need not always be made by a jangly and discordant vox populi. It was not so very long ago – a half century – in which primary elections were symbolic and rare, and democratic theorists saw this as right and proper. The primaries in 1960, notably the West Virginia primary between Kennedy and Humphrey, mattered so much because they sent a signal to elites in the Democratic Party about Kennedy’s appeal to Protestant Middle America. We sometimes mistake the demands of democracy as requiring that “the people” participate at all moments of the democratic process. But why should this be? The public is very proficient at choosing among candidates who have been vetted, but they are less knowledgeable about the trustworthiness and competence of candidates as judged by colleagues. Voters are easily swayed by advertising or journalistic accounts without awareness of background information to which insiders have access.

While I prefer strong parties that select their candidates through the wisdom of local knowledge, this is not possible as nomination contests have been organized. During most elections the public winnows the candidates so that by spring only one remains. The convention has become a ritual afterthought, a glorious coronation filled with balloons and bombast.

But this need not be so, and perhaps it will not be the case in 2012. Consider a scenario in which Newt and Mitt split 50% of the delegates, Ron Paul gathers 15%, Michele Bachmann gains 10%, Rick Perry nabs the same, and Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman, bless his rock’n’roll heart, split 5%. Another ten percent are uncommitted elected officials. What might happen under these circumstances?

Perhaps the outcome – fifty ballots – might be highly entertaining for political junkies, but the results might also be instructive and bracing, as candidates – those who have run and those who have not – are deliberately considered by leaders with influence and stature. Perhaps the GOP will select a candidate that a large swath of the Republican electorate can support, a candidate that hasn’t had to eat rubber chicken and sleep in fading motels. Perhaps we will discover that experts can make serious choices. Just maybe, should that happen, Barack Obama will confront more sleepless nights than if he were to face a possible President Paul or, gulp, Candidate Gingrich. But the rest of us might sleep easier.

Occupy Wall Street reminds my friend, colleague, and frequent “co-conspirator,” Elzbieta Matynia, and me of our long term engagement in the democratic opposition and alternative cultural movements in East and Central Europe. There and then, we coordinated an international seminar, before and after 1989, between scholars and activists, concerning the theoretical and practical problems of democracy, “The Democracy Seminar.” As we observe Occupy Wall Street with a great deal of interest, appreciation and in support, we are moved to act.

We therefore have proposed to The New School community and the activists in OWS the creation of a new seminar, as a place for mutual learning and discussion that can inform action, The Flying Seminar (the name inspired by a dissident academic program during the late 70s and 80s in Poland). The idea came out of an informal chat with one of OWS’ outreach people at Zuccotti Park.  Tomorrow at 3:00 pm, we will have a planning meeting and a first conversation, as part of an Occupy Wall Street Teach In at The New School.

We propose to organize a series of portable conversations with key participants and dedicated observers in various movements and actions in the United States and beyond, which could help to crystallize the differences and parallels between projects of resistance then and now.  We had in mind, for example, the Civil Rights Movement , SDS, the 1968 movements in Europe, the second wave feminist movement in the States, the Solidarity Movement in Poland, The Anti-Apartheid Movement in South Africa (its peaceful and its militant side), the Green Revolution in Iran, and the Arab Spring.  Our goal will be to facilitate discussion about movements past, from here and elsewhere, as a way of guiding the future of movements present. The hope is that this discussion could help address the key question of what is to be done now.

We agree with many of our colleagues, along with our university president, David Van Zandt, that the New School should be an active part of and site for the OWS. Using our specific resources, and in recognition of the special horizontal, open-ended character of the movement, and its fresh language for opposing the status quo, we hope to make our modest contribution. The exact form the seminar will take, and its specific ends, will be determined by those who participate. Our hope, though, is that it will be a place of collective learning that will facilitate common actions, making them more visible, in New York and far beyond.

A few additional thoughts concerning yesterday’s post on the Republicans, Obama and Occupy Wall Street: I asserted that the Obama makes sense, while the Republicans don’t. I had in mind specifically the contrast to the situation in the early 80s. While I strongly opposed the “Reagan revolution,” I knew that it made sense to Americans. They agreed with the idea that government was the problem not the solution as they reflected upon the inefficiencies of the welfare state. The challenge for progressives then was to present an equally compelling opposing story. They failed. Now things are reversed. Even though the Tea Party somehow managed to gain significant and passionate support, the idea that the Great Recession has been caused by government regulations is not compelling to most Americans. Occupy Wall Street suggests a much more sensible diagnosis of our times and has successfully changed the conversation, as Paul Krugman also underscored today. Obama’s account makes sense in this environment. It is for this reason that I think my prediction that Obama will not only win the election, but it will actually make a big difference in the way the American ship of state navigates through rough waters, is not premature as Scott suggested in his comment to yesterday’s piece.

The question of Obama’s chances has been discussed extensively on my facebook page in response to yesterday’s post. Let me underscore, I think because of the Republican disarray, which has to do with the weakness of the specific candidates, but, crucially beyond personalities,  also with their nonsensical positions, not only improves Obama’s chances, but also Democratic candidates for the Senate and the House. And, in my judgment the long term significance of the OWS is that those who are elected are going to be pushed to address concerns centered on jobs and the problem of gross inequality in America.

On a different kind of interpretation from afar: I received an interesting response to yesterday’s post from Daniel Dayan in an email message. It was a theoretical and not a political response, which I appreciated. He noted:

“The ‘Occupy Wall Street’ movement has much more echo around the world than the largely undecipherable ‘Tea Party Movement.’ I like both the ample political landscape you describe, and the theoretical gestures you use, including: (1) (thanks!) ‘monstration,’ (2) the role of sacred, or symbolic, space as one of amplifying small gestures into world gestures, whispers into cries, and (3) Arendt’s ‘lost treasure’ of revolutionary engagement….I am intrigued by your view of certain spaces as microphones. This adds a new twist to Turner.”

Dayan and I are fascinated by how the politics of small things, the sacred, monstration (the problem of showing) and visibility in the new media landscape, and the reinvention of political culture (my way of putting it) are now developing. My post and his response encapsulate where our conversation is now and where possible joint research is going. Our task will be to understand the way politics and media relate. This is an important scholarly problem, but also a pressing practical one, which I hope will be investigated in the Flying Seminar.

We live in difficult times, but the political capacity to address the difficulties may be emerging in America, none too soon and in the right place.

The Republican presidential nomination debates reveal how far the GOP is from addressing the concerns of the American public. It seems, as a consequence, that President Obama’s re-election is likely, even with the persistent tough economic situation. He makes sense. The Republicans don’t. They offer the 999 plan and other fantasies as economic policy. Obama proposes sensible realistic programs, the jobs bill and the like. The re-election, further, may very well have very significant consequences. The Obama transformation, which I have reflected upon in an earlier post, may proceed and deepen.  I have this hope because of Occupy Wall Street.

OWS is already a resounding success, and it has the potential to extend the success for months, indeed, probably for years ahead. We at Deliberately Considered have been discussing the occupation. Scott and Michael Corey, like observers elsewhere, are concerned that the occupiers don’t have a clear program. They seem to be a hodgepodge of disparate misfits, anarchists, druggies, vegans, feminists, trade unionists, environmentalists and veterans of left-wing battles past, with no clear unified goals. The political causes they espouse seem to be as varied as they are as a group. They express a sentiment and sensibility, but they do not propose any policy. Yet, I think it is crucial to note that there is a simple and telling coherence in the protest and that there is a discernable achievement already that is being deepened as the occupation persists.

The occupiers are telling a simple truth. America is becoming an increasingly unequal society. The rich are getting rich and the poor (and working people) are getting poorer, especially the young and people of color. The occupiers call upon the media, the political class and the population at large to take notice, and notice is being taken as the occupations spread around the country and the world.

In the U.S., popular discontent is no longer identified with a tax revolt and with people who think the primary task of government is to do as little as possible. The rich can no longer hide behind the title, “job creators.” Public opinion polls point to the popularity of taxing the super rich to fund public services and jobs development for the vast majority. And as the occupation persists, this simple message will be underscored.

Persistence through the winter is likely, building on the achievements already linked to the special power of the ground zero occupation. Cost versus benefit balance applies. Something approaching sacred space has been occupied, down the road from the “Ground Zero Mosque,” across the street from Ground Zero of 9/11. Whispers there are heard around the world.  What frustrated the local Muslim community is the great resource of today’s occupiers. The police forbid bullhorns, but the park itself has become a global microphone, enabling the people now occupying it and occupiers to come, to be heard, to show their concerns to the world. The power of showing, the power of monstration as Daniel Dayan puts it, is a great resource. The costs of staying for a few hundred people are relatively low. And the benefits of staying are great. Occupying provides a life time experience of what Hannah Arendt calls the lost treasure of the revolutionary tradition, making a difference in public, public freedom, acting with great consequence in a world that provides few chances to do so. As this treasure is mined, American politicians, Republicans and Democrats, will have to respond, as they have had to respond to the Tea Party. There is a new and qualitatively different popular pressure. And this I think will help Obama succeed where he hasn’t thus far.

He sought to demonstrate that a democratic government is a way that Americans can address their pressing problems. He has tried to rebalance the relationship between state and market in the American political economy. A moderate Democrat, he has been denounced as a socialist by Republicans. With the Tea Party active and progressives complaining in the blogosphere but not much more, the political center moved right.

Now with the winds blowing from Zuccotti Park, a new popular pressure is emerging. The President will be criticized to be sure. But the pressure to pass a serious jobs bill will either yield results before the Presidential election or shape it. There will be serious popular demands for taxing the super rich and pressure to develop healthcare reform, to escalate the disengagement from Afghanistan and Iraq, to enact serious immigration reform, to work to de-militarize American foreign policy.

There will be pressure on the President to fulfill his promise, which will enable him to do so.