This book is a clear and thorough analysis of one of the worst shortcomings of contemporary politics, democratic or tyrannical: the transformation of the public sphere into a mere show, a spectacle for audiences, not for citizens. Substance is always constricted by the spectacle. Hard, evident truths can not be expressed for fear of enraging the audience. Irrelevant debates obscure the issues our societies should be discussing. Politics as spectacle is what explains the kind of political leaderships, enmities and controversies that exist. Murray Edelman is very good at telling some of the hard truths I mentioned, one of the most important being that new political leaders, right from the start of their careers, have to follow the rules of politics as spectacle, otherwise, their careers get to nothing and they are unable to accomplish anything anyway, talented and brave as they may be. Politics as spectacle is the cause that a whole nation is for years focused on the sexual errands of a President, while other important things are happening to that very nation, with seldom anybody pointing at the real issues. Politics as spectacle is the cause that a crazy Marxist with a pipe and a ski mask marches around a nation (Mexico) with supporters who know nothing about the issues in discussion.

Summing up, Edelman has written a very good argument about how politics is the construction of a big spectacle in which every actor plays its role. One very interesting point brought up by Edelmann is that ethnic and religious conflicts are usually the result of manipulative politics by skilled but immoral politicians. That is, if those potential conflicts have nothing to give to political leaders, most likely they will not erupt, but will be solved in time. I think this book is a must read for anybody interested in knowing how contemporary politics (and, I would say, politics in all yimes) are constructed. Once you know the truth, you will be far harder to deceive.

Normative theories of democracy presume political process to be more or less rational. However, we have accumulated so much evidence to the contrary that perhaps the time has come to view these basic assumptions in a critical light and - to get rid of them. If mass democracy is a spectacle, as Guy Debord put it, why not make this the point of departure for our analysis?..

I was both delighted and a bit frustrated to find that somebody else (Murray Edelman) has done this already, obstructing somewhat my plans for that matter. And yet it is a brilliant book, crisp and clear, both simple and persuading, making complex issues .

The idea is elaborated thoroughly. Political spectacle is the logic that stands behind the construction and use of political leaders and political enemies, that elevates this or that political 'problem' in the spotlight.

Political problems are the constructs of existing ideologies and political language. The main characteristic of political problem is that it is not to be solved (e.g. unemployment). It is a narrative that is used for mass arousal. This explains why substance is always eagerly sacrificed for drama, raising support for political leaders but also creating a huge gap between political agenda, everyday experience and personal well-being. Political apathy is, according to Murray, the silent resistance of citizens to the imposing rhetoric of political leaders, struggling over irrelevant issues.

Political leaders are constructed and employed by the political spectacle. They have to act in the environment with so much structural and actual constraints that there is not much they can do. The only criteria for selection of political leaders these days also seems to be not their administrative talents, but their ability to compromise and deceive. A person with clear political message could never become a political leader, because he would lack vagueness necessary to attract various groups of voters.

The existing bureaucratic system is so complex and so much involved with various interest groups and industries that putting together a coherent policy is practically out of reach for any political leaders. The impotence of political leaders makes them desperate to substitute tough stance for tough action, enemies for adversaries and opponents, foreign affairs for domestic policy. They start to look for enemies abroad, small enough to be incapable of retaliation.

Forget inner-city ghettoes and gun laws - let's bomb Belgrade, Yugoslavia ( or Baghdad, Iraq, or Grozny, Chechnya, or whatever). There is nothing like this in a book of course - it features strictly theoretic approach and, by the way, it way published well back in 1988, when the power structure was much more stable thanks to Cold war long-term threat, the PR 'trick of the century'.