Sanders reminded me of Noam Chomsky in the Ali G interview – both men are intellectuals who demonstrated commendable patience and tolerance with the characters’ stupidity, no doubt wondering at times if this was serious, but – and this is the main point – nevertheless patiently trying to set them straight.
It’s a perfectly fine parallel because for the most part, in most of Cohen’s ambushes the wingnuts went along with the stupidities whether or not they agreed with them, which was quite the marked contrast. In this show, the gun nuts mindlessly going along with the guns for toddlers thing was truly amazing. And in an example of Cohen playing the antagonist, his Dr. Nira Cain-N’Degeocello character having dinner with the Trump-supporting couple was pretty instructive. It wasn’t so much that the Trumpists were polite to him (on camera, at least), it was their unfailing acceptance of his lunatic propositions as real and credible for a liberal that was so remarkable, like his alleged open marriage to a dolphin.
That was undoubtedly the best part of that particular episode.
The Kinderguard was worth the price of admission, but the rest of it was unwatchable. The bit with the Republican couple having dinner was especially terrible. They seemed like a perfectly nice couple who didn’t deserve it.
A perfectly nice couple who support separating immigrant kids from their parents. A perfectly nice couple who support our President in his actions. A perfectly nice couple who support people who write and implement voter ID laws. A perfectly nice couple who support repealing Dodd-Frank. A perfectly nice couple who want to take away a woman’s right to seek an abortion.
Think about the circumstances. This wasn’t some nefarious hidden-camera scheme. The couple knew they were going to be filmed in conversation with this supposed Dr. Nira Cain-N’Degeocello. The woman stated that she was a county rep for the state Republican party and a Trump-supporting delegate at the Republican convention. The man was a “staunch Republican” and Trump voter. They were obviously amenable and seemingly enthusiastic about being in a film and having an opportunity to publicize their views in a political conversation. They were not innocent bystanders.
So how did it go wrong for them? It went wrong because the good doctor Cain-N’Degeocello turned out to be a complete crackpot and they were stupid and gullible enough to go along with it. Some of the stuff was a bit tasteless, I admit, though I loved the part about the doctor being cuckolded by a dolphin having relations with his partner.
It’s basically social commentary, which Cohen does a lot of. If one concludes from this that being a big Trump supporter correlates well with gullibility and stupidity, well, it’s one more anecdote that supports a very plausible hypothesis that seems to go right up the ranks to the top. One might ask how I would feel if Cohen had tried this on a liberal couple or person. Well, he did – in a different character, he did it to Bernie Sanders earlier in the same episode. The difference is that, like Chomsky, Bernie had the good sense to patiently and politely try to explain why the Billy Wayne Ruddick character was being stupid. These folks didn’t. They just bought it all, hook line and sinker. Bernie came off looking like the calm no-nonsense intellectual that he is, these folks came off looking like idiots. It might be considered a touch harsh to expose their stupidity so glaringly, but they’re not innocent of knowingly seeking self-serving exposure for themselves.
Sure was. Hell, a ton of segregationalists were nice and reasonable. Many slave owners were nice and reasonable (to people who weren’t their slaves). Go to a country club in the 50’s (hell, even the 80s) and there were a ton of nice and reasonable people who would fight tooth and nail to stop Jews, women, or non-whites from joining them. Currently, there are a lot of nice, reasonable people who don’t believe in global warming, think mentally ill people should have access to guns, and think a vast majority of people who are poor simply don’t work hard enough.
It’s absolutely true that many people I disagree with politically are nice and reasonable. That doesn’t reduce the harm their beliefs and taking action on those beliefs, cause in the real world. Nor does it excuse their support of people and policies that are the antithesis of nice and reasonable.
You know what else used to be a thing? Actually reading what someone wrote – as in #85, which addresses all your concerns – and responding to that if you care to, instead of just repeating yourself.
All very good points, which I completely agree with, but that’s not really the central point here. The piece consisted of Cohen, playing an ultra-liberal caricature named Dr. Nira Cain-N’Degeocello, discussing a series of completely insane practices in the guise of “liberal” values, and these idiots listened in slack-jawed amazement, fully believing that, yes, this is how liberals might think. Their narrow-minded gullibility and stupidity was really the point, much as in the gun-nut segment. I suppose it’s political in that it elucidates the general point that people who believe in very stupid policies are generally very stupid.
Who should be pranked? Politicians and political commentators should be tested; pranking is a sound evaluator. Pranksters should be transparent; they should uncover the dishonest and maldroit, but not fabricate the same.
Private citizens wishing to lead a private life shouldn’t be forced to appear on television: that’s what waivers are for. To those wishing to appear on television, let the attention seeker beware.
Nor are they exactly private citizens wishing to remain private.
I think Noam Chomskian patience is also a reasonable response, given Poe’s Law.
There’s something to your point about misdirection and psychology. (For more on this, see Derren Brown.) But it’s also plausible that certain groups are more vulnerable to grifts than others, either as victims, participants or both. Quite a few Republican hacks will apparently read anything that’s put in front of them. I trust it’s possible to find plenty of Democrats who will do the same, but I opine that liberals have stronger anti-bodies against such grifts. Joe Walsh’s enthusiasm as he read the teleprompter was quite striking.
I can’t agree that the psychology is any sort of excuse. Yes, he can put you in the situation that would make you most amenable to saying things, but the things he is getting them to agree with are things that are so bad that anyone who could even agree with them is a shitty person in my mind. The best case scenario is that they don’t actually believe it, but don’t think that such beliefs are all that bad.
It’s one thing not to speak out. I get why that can happen. But you don’t agree. You don’t say the bad thing yourself. You try to move past that, and, if you can’t, you excuse yourself.
And, of course, if someone is interviewing you for any sort of media, you should be smart enough to be on your guard for traps. Maybe some idiot off the street isn’t, but a politician? Come on. I mean, I wouldn’t take an interview about an award I got for my local paper without being very, very careful with my words.
So surely these guys think they are being careful. They’re on camera. And they still say this stuff.
Such releases invariably grant the producers very, very wide latitude in terms of how the content is edited and presented as a final product. Even normal interviews are heavily edited to give the audience a particular impression. Baron Cohen (nitpick; his surname is styled Baron Cohen, not Cohen) could have done the interviews totally straight up, as himself, no jokes, and then edited them to appear bizarre.
It has to be that way because if the release DIDN’T allow for editorial latitude, basically ever interview ever filmed would be subject to potential legal action unless it was presented with no editing at all.
Protip; if you ever have to be interviewed, get coaching. Coming off well in an interview is hard.
There is virtually zero chance of any (successful) litigation over this. That said, I hope you’re all prepared for Season 2, when Cohen starts making liberals look silly instead.
Honestly, the person who comes out looking best in this is Matt Gaetz. I hate his guts, but I appreciate the fact that he didn’t take himself too seriously. It probably didn’t hurt that he figured it out during the interview, unlike the others.