The Burlesque, the Comic, and the Tragic:

Politics in Postmodern America

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dr. Tim Borchers

Moorhead State University

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Paper presented to the National Communication Association

1998 Convention, New York, NY

Nov. 22, 1998

The Burlesque, the Comic, and the Tragic:

Politics in Postmodern America

Since the Monica Lewinsky scandal came to light in January 1998, the public has been titillated, disgusted, and then disinterested. As with many media events, the story provoked a great deal of initial interest, died down, erupted again with the release of the Starr Report, and then faded into the backdrop of American politics at the end of 1998. Given the surprising showing by Democrats in the 1998 elections, it appears that soon (maybe even before this paper is presented) the Lewinsky affair will be yet another inconsequential mark on Clinton's record. This paper traces the rhetorical development of the Lewinsky scandal through the lens of Burke's poetic categories. I will argue that the comic frame created by Clinton's rhetoric has received the most public support, and that this is not too surprising given the current postmodern mindset of the American electorate.

Burke's Poetic Categories

Burke says rhetoric is a way of defining situations, or dramas. In Philosophy of Literary Form, he writes, "These strategies size up the situations, name their structure and outstanding ingredients, and name them in a way that contains an attitude toward them" (1). Burke continues, "Our philosophers, poets, and scientists act in the code of names by which they simplify or interpret reality" (ATH 4). These codes are explained through the concept of reference frames, the "more or less organized system of meanings by which a thinking man gauges the historical situation and adopts a role with relation to it" (ATH 5). Reference frames, wrote Carlson, "are the symbolic structures by which human beings impose order upon their personal and social experiences. Frames serve as perspectives from which all interpretations of experience are made" (447). In addition to philosophers, poets, and scientists, our politicians and media create frames to explain political situations.

Burke said that frames promote acceptance or rejection of the social system. The frame of acceptance accepts authority and the social order. Rejection "throws the emphasis stylistically upon the partiality of rejection rather than the completeness of acceptance" (ATH 22). Within the frame of acceptance, Burke argued, two strategies, tragedy and comedy, are used by rhetors to build "the mental equipment (meanings, attitudes, character) by which one handles the significant factors of his time" (ATH 34). The difference between tragedy and comedy is explained by Burke, "Like tragedy, comedy warns against the dangers of pride, but its emphasis shifts from crime to stupidity" (ATH 41). While the tragic is the most common frame, Carlson argued, "The most humane frame for understanding and acting in society is the 'comic frame'" (448). "Comedy creates joy, joy creates social euphoria which deepens love and trust in each other. Comedy is ethical because it is rational and rational because is leads to good social relationships" (Duncan 390).

Frames of rejection include the burlesque, the plaint or elegy, and the grotesque. For Burke, the burlesque "makes no attempt to get inside the psyche of his victim. Instead, he is content to select the externals of behavior, driving them to a ‘logical conclusion’ that becomes their ‘reduction to absurdity’" (ATH, 54). Burke continues:

Appel adds, "In burlesque, that hero is a logician, full of himself, eager to flaunt his unanswerable reasons why" (272). The burlesque is not a well-rounded frame. That is, it only partially rejects the situation and does not provide a complete frame of reference for accepting the situation.

The Lewinsky/Clinton affair can be understood by tracing how each of the characters have attempted to shape the public frame and how the media have shaped the public frame through its coverage of the affair. I contend that Ken Starr's rhetoric is best understood using the frame of burlesque, the media, the frame of tragedy, and Clinton, the comic.

Ken Starr: Burlesque Storyteller

Appel, combining the work of Burke and several additional theorists, outlines "five generic features of burlesque drama" (271). In essence, these features explain how the burlesque frames a response to a perceived disruption in order. Burlesque rhetoric includes black and white schematization of scenic problems, egocentrism and ostentatious displays of logic, heartless caricature of bumbling opponents, rejection and limited banishment of the retrograde opponents, and unbridled self-aggrandizement as redemptive goal (274-279).

Black and White Schematization of Scenic Problems

Appel writes that pollution, to the burlesque, is a gross transgression that calls for a "forceful, biting response" (272). The burlesque sees situations as right or wrong, black or white, with no room in the middle. A common criticism of the independent counsel's investigation has been his apparent lack of independence. In case you aren’t familiar with Starr’s appointment as an Independent Counsel, I’ll provide a brief synopsis. Following cries from Republicans that Attorney General Janet Reno name an independent counsel in the Whitewater affair, she appointed the esteemed Republican attorney Robert Fiske to the post. Fiske investigated the matter and found nothing. Soon, Republicans were upset that Reno, a member of the Clinton cabinet, had made the appointment herself. Then, following a lunch between federal judge David Sentelle, and Republican Senators Jesse Helms and Lauch Faircloth (who lost re-election incidentally), Judge Sentelle rules that Fiske should be removed and replaced by Ken Starr. Starr had previously served in the Bush administration and was active in GOP politics, even considering a run for Congress himself. Starr’s appointment had all the trappings of the burlesque.

Starr initially was appointed to investigate the Whitewater land transaction in which the Clinton’s are alleged to have illegally benefited from a loan in Arkansas in the 1970s. Soon, he investigated the whole series of "gates" that have come to epitomize the Clinton administration: travelgate, filegate, etc. and finally interngate. His report to Congress on these investigations included nothing of the previous reasons for his investigation, instead focusing solely on Clinton’s affair with Lewinsky. The report did not contain evidence exonerating Clinton for his other misdeeds. In fact, we aren’t certain what evidence Starr has against Clinton in the other scandals. In addition, the Starr Report is said by many to have glossed over evidence that would be positive for Clinton concerning Lewinsky.

Egocentrism and Ostentatious Displays of Logic

Appel explains that the burlesque steps in to explain the pollution in the social order. The burlesque is "a logician, full of himself, eager to flaunt his unanswerable reasons why" (273). The Starr Report and supporting evidence are prime examples of an "ostentatious display of logic." The 400-odd page Starr Report and the 26 boxes of supporting documents were, to many, overkill. The first half of the Starr Report was a narrative account of what happened between Clinton and Lewinsky, from Lewinsky’s perspective. The second half repeated much of the narrative account, but adding legalese. The 40-50 millions dollars spent on the investigation also helps build the argument that Starr went overboard in order to prove his case. Many Americans, it turns out, did not read the Starr Report. To them, the report went too far in providing the "salacious" details of the affair. True to debunking, Starr overplayed his hand.

Heartless Caricature of Bumbling Opponents

The burlesque "points the finger of blame at the errant other, the 'bad guy.' The burlesquer does so, once again, with a perfect sense of pitch… Burlesquers deinstitutionalize their enemies, strip them of excuses, of dignity" (272). The Starr Report and the four hour long deposition given by Clinton on August 17, 1998 illustrate the manner in which Starr has framed the president. Nancy Gibbs writes in Time of Sept. 21, 1998, "The most shocking aspect of the report was the sheer quantity and raw quality of sexual detail. Starr's grand jurors received this evidence drop by drop, day by day; last week it came in a torrent over the wires in an instant, flooding the circuits of conscience and calculation and taste" (34-35). She continues, "Starr's version left members of Congress expressing the desire to take a shower after they read it" (35).

Rejection and Limited Banishment of the Retrograde Opponents

The burlesque, writes Appel, "do not slap the wrists of the 'idiots' only then to embrace them, like comedians. Nor do they kill their enemies dead, like tragedians. The do, though, want them gone from the scene of activity. They scapegoat them" (272). The burlesque strikes a balance between comic and tragic frames. Although Starr has built a case for impeachment, he has not himself pursued impeachment. He has turned the political aspects of the matter over to the House for it to pursue. It is uncertain whether criminal charges will be brought against Clinton. At this stage, Starr has rejected Clinton, but has not metaphorically killed him yet.

Unbridled Self-Aggrandizement as Redemptive Goal

The redemptive stage of the drama serves the burlesquer. "They pursue their personal ends as though on a moral crusade. They are cocksure, unambivalent about the rectitude of their illiberal quest" (272). CNN legal analyst Roger Cossack said, "I think he clearly wants a conviction... He wants to win. He wants to get the President" (Carville 135). But importantly, as Burke notes is a danger with the debunking method, Starr may have overplayed his hand in his attempt to get the president. Gibbs observed the reaction of several Republicans following release of the Starr Report: "Starr had so overplayed the sex that it might ultimately undercut his argument and obscure what many Republicans had hoped would be more open-and-shut cases on obstruction" (38). Starr created a burlesque frame which attempted to debunk Clinton and his presidency. However, the frame created by Starr was so extreme that it has not gained wide acceptance with the public.

The Tragic Frame: Mainstream Media Mystification

The Lewinsky affair is a case study in how the mass media, in particular the mainstream elements of the media–the network nightly news, newsweeklies, and large newspapers–are gradually losing power in today's media age. With new media sources such as 24-hour news networks, the Drudge Report, and the public's access to wire reports via the internet the mainstream media is trying desperately to mystify the political process so that its interpretation of politics is still necessary. If it no longer provides meaningful data to the public, the media industry will lose its profit base. When the Starr Report was delivered to the world via the internet, the media struggled to make the audience, who was reading the report at the same time, hear its interpretation. The result is a tragic frame, in which Clinton is the scapegoat.

In Watergate, the media effectively ousted Nixon from office. Since then, its perspective on politics has been tragic. Tragedy sells newspapers and advertising dollars. Tragedy, however, relies on mystery, which, said Burke, was a unifying form of social control. Burke said, "In brief, mysteries are a good grounding for obedience, insofar as the acceptance of a mystery involves a person in abnegation of his own personal judgment. For in Earthy symbolicity, 'reason' will be closely associated with rule" (Rhetoric of Religion 307). Mystery creates order, from which guilt is inevitable. The tragic frame also forces the media to pursue the ultimate redemptive prize: impeachment or resignation. I will focus now on the redemptive stage of the tragic drama. In this case, sacrificing Clinton is what's required, according to media coverage.

James Carville identified the media's attention to the "critical point" in the Starr investigation. Carville uncovered at least 12 instances where the national media identified a "critical juncture" or "critical point" in the scandal. On Aug. 23, 1995, for example, the New York Times reported, "The First Lady's Whitewater testimony 'is a strong indication that his widening inquiry has reached a critical new phase'" (46). On Nov. 12, 1996, Starr told an audience that his "investigation is at a critical juncture now, and we are proceeding as expeditiously as possible" (47). The media seem to be interested in bringing about a final judgment in the Clinton-Lewinsky matter.

The media is also focused on the final solution: impeachment or resignation. Time of Sept. 28, 1998 reported that over 100 newspapers around the country asked for Clinton's resignation. When resignation became unlikely, the focus shifted to impeachment. In fact, the Time magazine cover of Sept. 28, 1988 asked, "Is impeachment the only way out?" The lead to its cover story that week was clearly tragic: "The way people die in caves is by going forward too fast, into wedges that trap them, rivers that drown them and mazes that defeat them until they give up or starve" (Gibbs and Duffy 30). To the media, redemption will be achieved only by Clinton's resignation or an affirmative vote in the Senate to remove him from office--tragic ends to the Lewinsky affair.

President Clinton: Comic Actor

Comedy pictures people, "not as vicious, but as mistaken" (ATH 41). Duncan elaborated on Burke's notion of tragedy in Communication and Social Order. From his discussion of comedy, a four step process of comic purification is distilled: incongruity, belittling, catharsis, and enlightenment. Initially, incongruity results when a rhetor tests the limits of society's rules/norms. Duncan wrote, "The comic actor must keep alive belief in reason. His dilemma is how to explain why men so capable of reason and joy are yet so irrational and sad. He resolves this by showing how men sin because they abandon reason" (389). Moore adds, "In the comic frame, social order does not depend on terror or mystery, but on mutual belief in the power of reason" (110). I contend, however, that the comic allows for negotiation of reason. Comic actors are able to use symbols to question the prevailing reason of the day. Tragedy, on the other hand, deals with reason as well, but a reason that is dependent on mystery for its acceptance. For this reason, the comic reflects principles of the postmodern. Comedy allows for multiple interpretations of reality. Burke writes, "Not all the significant cultural factors are given the importance that a total vision of reality would require. Class interests provide the cues that distort the interpretative frame, making its apparent totality function as an actual partiality" (ATH 40). This, Burke notes, is the "menace" of the comic frame.

Perception of Incongruity

The initial step toward comic purification is labeled incongruity, because as Duncan pointed out, there is a confusing contradiction between what humans do and what they should do. Brummett noted, "Comedy exposes the incongruities between what people say they will do and how they actually behave" (220). Clinton did not say much publicly about the Lewinsky scandal until the Starr Report was released. To support my argument that his rhetoric on those occasions was comic, we will first examine his comic approach to earlier questions about the Whitewater transaction. Clinton perceived incongruity in the media's handling of Whitewater in a March 24, 1994 press conference:

Clinton underlined the incongruity between the goals of his administration and preoccupation with answering reporters' questions about Whitewater.

Belittling

The next stage of comic purification is belittling. As its tragic counterpart, guilt, belittling serves to focus the source of the pollution/incongruity. At this stage, the rhetor denigrates the comic transgressor. In a lighthearted address to the 80th Annual White House Correspondents Dinner held April 23, 1994, Clinton reminded reporters to "please separate glass, paper and plastic" as they went through the White House trash. In a more subtle statement on the April 19, 1994 MTV special "Enough is Enough," Clinton chided, "So far, the work of the Congress has not been diverted and the work of the presidency has not been diverted. I know it may be hard–you can't tell, in other words, from the news coverage that, but that's the truth." Clinton belittles a press that is concerned only for White House garbage and not the truth.

Catharsis

The comic rhetor next relies on a comic scapegoat to "purify" a confused hierarchy. This stage is labeled "catharsis." Where tragedy relies on the "sacrifice of victims whose suffering and death serves as a vicarious atonement for out guilt," (Duncan 395) comedy requires a clown who is the object of comedy. "We are laughing at him to purge him–and ourselves–of folly, not to torture and kill him" (395). "The comic transgressor accepts his beating as just punishment and longs to be accepted again by those who punish him" (Duncan 398). Unlike tragedy, it is not necessary to kill the clown, "for he can mend his ways" (Duncan 399).

Clinton drew laughter and applause at the April 23, 1994 White House Correspondents dinner when he offered a list of "potential scandals" for the media's consumption:

Clinton is laughing at the media, but he is also laughing at himself and society. In a more serious tone, Clinton derides the press for focusing on Whitewater and not the more serious problem of the savings and loan scandal. He told reporters on March 24, 1994, "And you can see by some of the decisions that they [the Resolution Trust Corporation] have made that that is the furthest thing, it seems to me, that ought to be on your mind." The press is offered as a comic scapegoat in order for societal catharsis to occur.

Triumph of Reason

The end result of comic purification is open, rational discourse which yields enlightenment. "Gridiron dinners, the Mardi Gras, Feasts of Fools, and modern television programs of 'Truth or Consequences' reduce social differences, not by eliminating or hiding them, but by bringing them to light in laughter which makes open communication possible" (404). Comedy, instead of accepting a rigid social law, keeps "convictions about social means and ends open to reason" (406). "In comic absolution, we are forgiven our sins because they surely will not threaten the group once they become 'understandable' through open and free discussion" (Duncan 397). Thus, rhetors, the comic scapegoat, and society learn from the comic purification process.

Clinton believes he and the First Lady have benefited from open, rational discourse. He remarked in his March 24, 1994 press conference that:

Clinton indicated that he had learned from the scandals of his administration. While "purification" in the tragic sense is not really achieved in the comic frame, comedy does obtain pollution management and control.

Clinton's Lewinsky Rhetoric as Comic

Clinton used the comic approach to keep the pollution from developing until August 1998, when he testified that he did have an affair with Lewinsky. His national address on August 17, 1998 may have marked a shift to the tragic frame. In the speech, he first apologized for the affair and then scapegoated the Starr investigation. I contend, however, that this was only a momentary shift and that in the context of his earlier statements, Clinton’s Aug. 17 address was a reflection of his earlier thinking, albeit amplified, and less comic in form, following his four hours of testimony to Starr that afternoon. In a speech on Martha’s Vineyard 11 days later, Clinton again returned to the comic. He made much the same speech as on August 17, but couched it in comic language. In regards to his misdeeds, he said, "All of you know I’m having to become quite an expert in this business of asking for forgiveness. It gets a little easier the more you do it, and if you have a family, an administration, a Congress and a whole country to ask, you’re going to get a lot of practice" (Clinton, n. pag.) He also attacked Starr in that speech: "The anger, the resentment, the bitterness, the desire for recrimination against people you believe have wronged you, they harden the hearts and deaden the spirit and lead to self-inflicted wounds. And so, it is important that we are able to forgive those we believe have wronged us even as we ask for forgiveness from people we have wronged" (Clinton n. pag.)

Another speech, this one to religious leaders on the morning the Starr report was released, appears as a tragic act of mortification. Yet the style and content of the speech is poetic/comic as well. Thompson and Palmeri add to our discussion of the comic by paraphrasing Rueckert’s words on the subject: "It [the comic frame] encourages poets, critics, and those reached to use metaphors as a means of mapping moments, while realizing no metaphor presents a full drama. The comic frame acknowledges the basic principle of ecology, that everything it related to everything else, and that reality is always in process. In short, the comic is a flexible, adaptive frame of acceptance" (276).

Clinton used metaphor as a means of mapping his perspective on the drama of the Starr Report. Turning, said Clinton, citing a passage from the Yom Kippur liturgy, does not come easily for humans. "It means admitting that we have been wrong, and this is never easy. It means losing face. It means starting all over again. And this is always painful. It means saying I’m sorry. It means recognizing that we have the ability to change" (Clinton n. pag.). The last sentence reflects perfectly the notion behind the comic perspective: that humans can change and do not need to be sacrificed for their crimes.

Clinton also used the speech to again attack Starr’s investigation: "I am grateful for those who have stood by me and who say that in this case and many others, the bounds of presidency have been excessively and unwisely invaded" (Clinton n. pag.). He ends up arguing that "good can come of this for our country as well as for me and my family" (Clinton n.pag.). True to his comic form, Clinton admitted his faults, exposed the Starr investigation, and poetically asked to remain part of the American family.

The Public’s Frame: Debunking Politics in Postmodern Society

Having laid out the frames created by each of the major actors in the Lewinsky affair, we can now attempt to understand the public frame. I contend that the public has accepted Clinton’s comic frame and that it has not only voiced its contempt for the impeachment proceedings through public opinion polls, but it has resoundingly voted in the polls against the proceedings. Burke warns that the burlesque frame, epitomized by Starr, is not a suitable frame, for it is incomplete:

The public has refused to accept this frame because it refuses to completely reject the leadership Clinton has shown in guiding the nation to prosperous economic times. Starr forces an either-or choice on the public, a false dilemma which we have refused.

What about the tragic frame advanced by the media? Despite media attempts to cling to the power of mystification, the public has demystified politics and the news media. We are able to use the e-media to form our own hierarchies and frames of social reality. We no longer need the media to structure those frames for us. I believe a good example of this is the election of former pro-wrestler Jesse Ventura as governor of Minnesota. Politics has been demystified to the point that individual voters can see themselves running for office. We no longer need the media to mystify the process. In fact, Ventura did virtually no advertising and received little serious media coverage. His campaign relied on simply informing the disenchanted public that he was running. One in eight voters said they would not have voted if Ventura was not in the race. Polling places ran out of registration cards because of the large numbers of new voters. Ventura won votes from a wide cross section of the public (except the highly educated). The public does not need the media to form its frame of reality. The public forms its own frame(s).

In the case of Clinton/Lewinsky, the public has accepted the comic frame advanced by Clinton. This shouldn't bee too surprising given the disjoined nature of American politics at the end of the 20th century. Clinton’s comic frame accepts that society is "‘loose,’ free to wander through perspectives, to practice many ways of seeing, to circumscribe the circles of terms available for any given moment" (Thompson and Palmeri 276). Clinton attempts to use comedy to demystify the powers of government..

Conclusion

In closing, I turn to the question of the day: "Does Burke’s theory contain postmodern principles?" Burke's notion of the comic seems to reflect postmodern principles because it rejects mystery and the totalizing nature of social hierarchy. Duncan wrote, "In great comedy, unconscious, hidden and suppressed conflict is brought to light. And if the dream is the guardian of sleep, comedy is the guardian of reason in society because it makes possible confrontation of social disrelationships" (Communication 393). Comedy rejects mystery by making speakable the unspeakable in an effort to establish rational discourse. Comedy seems to attack the hierarchy by ridiculing those who place societal principles "beyond reason" (Communication 394). Thus, comedy allows us a way to negotiate reason. I think comedy even allows for multiple "reasons," or "truths" to coexist. Since the comic scapegoat is not killed, he or she lives another day to argue for the reason/truth they hold true. So, yes, Burke’s theory does provide a rationale for the postmodern.

Politically, our view of politics in the late 20th century is also postmodern. The danger, I think, as we end the century is that the public frame is slipping beyond the comic to the debunking. The debunking frame is postmodernism at its worst: the rejection of all symbolic frames. Should the public adopt the debunking frame, politics will surely change. The mystery and hierarchy that protected incumbents and members of major political parties will be stripped away. The media will no longer have a voice in how the public interprets politics. Even the comic frame is in danger as it is but a shade of the tragic and both are frames of acceptance. The Minnesota experiment with the debunking frame will be a lesson for the nation. Clinton's legacy may be the way in which his approach to politics has transformed the public's symbolic organization of politics.

References