Media Matters: Back to the Future

“Nostalgia - it’s delicate, but potent… This device isn’t a spaceship, it’s a time machine. It goes backwards and forwards. It takes us to a place where we ache to go again.” - Don Draper, Mad Men

America is officially back, baby! We’re in effect like alternate side parking! Our swagger is looser than admission standards at Steve Harvey College (their major is your success). 

Sure, we’re still entangled in the eternally raging wars of the Middle East, wages are yet to return to pre-recession levels, divides along economic, ethnic and political lines are dangerously jagged, and Justin Bieber shows no signs of going away. Yet, when the ink has dried on this great chapter in our illustrious history, such unpleasantries will be no more than mere (if, in some cases, shirtless) footnotes to an era defined by an unprecedented scientific breakthrough. For you see, we have successfully mastered time travel!

Now, don’t go taunting you friends in China with your country’s new found technological supremacy just yet. Our resounding triumph over the previously undefeated space time continuum has not been officially announced. But, all the evidence is right before us. The 2015-2016 TV schedule is all set to feature new episodes of The X-Files, Twin Peaks, and Coach. Point Break, Porkies, and Poltergeist are all coming soon to a theater near you, as are not one, but two Ghostbusters films.

The number one song in the country is a catchy amalgamation of seemingly every post-disco era electro-funk classic, complete with vocodor-processed background vocals, vintage horn stabs and a lead singer who seemingly swiped Morris Day’s entire “Jungle Love” playbook. (“Tell the po-lice and the fire-man!”) Hell, the hottest fashion and technology accessory of the year is a watch. The kind that you strip to your wrist, and refer to when some poor soul without a smartphone asks you what time it is! 

If you need further evidence that while we slept, the government quietly transported us back to some magical moment in history between 1981 and 1999, just wait until November 2016, when President Clinton is sworn into office. Or, perhaps it will be President Bush. Regardless, the astounding completion of our stealthily executed teleport from “Morning in America” to “Deja Vu All Over Again” will be on full display for all the world to marvel upon.

Hillary made a noble effort at keeping America’s time travel expedition almost as clandestine as the 30,000 emails deleted from her private server. Announcing her presidential intentions by way of viral video was, indeed, a well timed diversionary nod to modernity. But, ultimately, it’s a contemporary means to a vintage end. Even Marty McFly couldn’t have gotten back to 1955 without the use of a state-of-the-art 1985 DeLorean, in the one kitschy ‘80s classic not currently being re-made, Back to the Future. Moreover, Clinton is sampling her own greatest hits. She announced her 2008 candidacy in essentially the same fashion, and even then it did little to establish her 21st Century bonafides with the re-tweeting young voters she was clearly courting. In 2015, the mere notion of social media as cutting edge feels quaint. 93-year old Betty White has 1.2 million Twitter followers. Once all the smoke from the takeoff clears, the direction Clinton is traveling will likely be obvious. Despite her recent declaration of being “all about new beginnings,” citing a new email account and hairstyle as examples, Clinton’s cadre of advisors and campaign leaders is flush with family loyalists, many with allegiances dating back to her husband’s 1992 campaign.

Jeb Bush, son of George and brother of, well, George, has yet to officially announce his candidacy (he is still “actively exploring” a run), but construction on his time machine appears to be well under way. Upon announcement of his foreign policy vision, Bush rolled out a team of advisors made of seemingly every GOP mainstays short of Ronald Reagan’s hologram. Nineteen members of Bush’s twenty-one person foreign policy gang served in the administration of either his brother or father, with a handful of familiar names like James Baker and Paul Wolfowitz having worked for both. Three even date back to the Reagan White House. While the makeup of Bush’s advisory team doesn’t necessarily invalidate his recent declaration that while he loves his father and brother, he is his “own man,” it does give strong indication that said man is not exactly forward-looking.

It’s certainly understandable that a pair of distinguished and accomplished 60-somethings would find comfort in a return to the past. What’s more surprising is the apparent willingness to embrace the pair and the dynastic traditionalism they represent, in a country supposedly driven by youth, novelty and innovation. We collectively wait in line twice a year outside the Apple Store to get our hot little hands on the first shipments of the newest mobile phones. We switch cars every two years to assure we’re not without all the latest features.We risk jail time and trojan horses to illegally download the latest music before it comes out, because heaven forbid this week’s iPhone 6.23SaIV be loaded with last weeks jams.

Yet, Clinton’s hold on the minds of Democrats (if not their hearts) is so strong that any and all qualified challengers seem to have retreated to their corners. While Bush must travel a much more treacherous road (unpaved due to Tea Party “austerity” and loaded with Koch manufactured land mines), the enthusiastic embrace he received from the Republican establishment (heavy hitting staffers and rainmaking donors) was enough to send Mitt Romney back to his car-elevator quaking in his magical Mormon Underoos. Current polls aside, smart money says that once the squirrels nesting in Rand Paul’s wig lead him to spout one conspiracy theory too many, and Ted Cruz is called back to the set of whatever upcoming Pixar movie for which he was coded into existence to play the buffoonish villain, we will find ourselves punching the same Clinton vs. Bush ballot come 2016 that we did in 1992.

 From a marketing standpoint, the explanation is is rather simple. It’s easier to sell a brand with an existing customer base than to build a newly minted one from the ground up. That’s certainly the logic behind the staggering array of sequels, remakes and re-boots that have been proliferating in Hollywood faster than Kardashian selfies over the past decade. With studios routinely shelling out upwards of $100 million on production and marketing before even a mid-budget film hits a single screen, and easily three times that on a big budget “tentpole” film, box office failure usually means somebody in the executive suite loses a job.

Against such high stakes, risk minimization becomes paramount, and familiarity trumps originality more often than not. When there’s something strange in the neighborhood, every American with access a basic cable subscription at any point during the last 30-odd years knows exactly who they’re gonna call, and it ain’t freakin’ Mortdecai. Want an action heart-pounder? Load another carcass into the Die Hard cannon. In the market for a dystopian sci-fi allegory, break the Terminator out of mothballs. You mean it’s been a whole two years since Batman’s aircraft went up in smoke over Gotham? Well, by golly, it’s high time to reincarnate that caped cashcow as Ben Affleck. (Talk about spoilers!) Even if the movies aren’t great, they’ll likely at least break even off of brand loyalty alone.

 That philosophy certainly goes a long way in explaining the enthusiasm for Clinton and Bush among party insiders. In an election that, according the the hysterical cries of party barkers, is shaping up as a fight for the very survival of America (aren’t they all), political kingmakers are understandably gun shy about hitching their wagons to an untested commodity. While Clinton may be low on razzle, Bush light on dazzle, neither is likely to implode during a presidential campaign. Perhaps more importantly, they come factory-stocked with that most elusively intangible of presidential qualities, gravitas, accrued during their years of familial proximity to the nation’s highest office.

 The same goes for the media’s schoolgirl-giddiness at the prospect of Bush/Clinton II. Among the general public, no two political surnames are better known, with a remarkable 24 years in the oval office between them. Plus, both brands carry the heat of controversy and the sexiness of scandal, the combination of which is the closest thing cable news has to performance enhancing drugs. (Sean Hannity’s forehead is expanding as we speak!) Such a showdown would be the cable news equivalent of Batman vs. Superman, Mayweather vs. Pacquiao, Kim Kardashian’s frenetically twerking hindquarters going head to head (cheek to cheek?) with Jennifer Lopez’s. We had the Rumble in the Jungle and the Thrilla in Manilla, now get ready for the Brawl for the Oval!

Yet, the general public is rarely moved by the hedging of bets or the boosting of news ratings, so I suspect there is something bigger at play in the swelling interest Clinton and Bush are receiving. In 2008, America was in crisis; reeling from a free-falling stock market and bursting housing bubble, embroiled in two ugly and directionless war, and scrambling to make ends meet in the face of a stagnant job market set against a spiraling cost of living. During that summer of unrest, citizens of all stripes grasped desperately at any disruption to the status quo, resulting in the election of Barack Obama, a relative Washington newcomer who represented a new generation of leadership, committed to re-shaping government in the mold of the 21st Century. It also gave rise to the Tea Party faction of the Republican party, who despite fits of incoherent rhetoric about the intentions of the founding fathers, were bent on change as well; mainly in the form of bringing government to its knees.

 The subsequent seven years saw much of the change that voters turned out in record numbers for; economic recovery, troop withdrawal in the Middle East, and an overhaul of the health care system chief among them. But, it didn’t come easy. With often diametrically opposed visions of what change should mean, the Obama White House and congressional Tea Partiers seemingly fought to the brink of Federal collapse on every issue, big or small. Government shutdowns were threatened, sequestration was enacted, and increasingly vitriolic invective filled cable airwaves and talk radio. In 2015, after seven years of rancor, America is simply wrung out, and understandably nostalgic for a simpler time.

 Research has consistently shown that people are prone to more frequent flights of nostalgia turning times of unhappiness or instability. It’s actually a coping mechanism. In a University of South Hampton study, participants revealed via testing to be extraordinarily lonely were significantly more likely to wax nostalgic after being shown disturbing images. After their respective trips down memory lane, they generally felt better, revealing reminiscence as the human brain’s very own anti-depresant. Dr. Tim Wildschudt goes a step further, positioning nostalgia as a system of survival:

 “If you can recruit a memory to maintain physiological comfort, at least subjectively, that could be an amazing and complex adaptation. It could contribute to survival by making you look for food and shelter that much longer.”

 While nostalgia is generally excepted as a natural and healthy coping tool, it can be perilous when it begins to wield too much influence over decision making. In producing nostalgia to help us through a tough time, the mind doesn’t simply served up memories, it tends to work as a filter, cropping out the problematic or simply mundane elements of an earlier era. When we reminisce to the music of the 1970s, we’re most liking grooving to the progressive rock and soul sounds that comprised the vanguard of the day, not the reams of cookie cutter disco 12-inches and campy novelty singles that were equally prevalent during the era.

 Likewise, the more time passes, the easier it is to simply remember the economic prosperity of the Bill Clinton years, when every college dropout was but a tech start-up away from prosperity, or the patriotic unity of the post-9/11 George W. Bush era. Meanwhile, our stardust memories tend to gloss over the elaborate personal soap opera of that nearly derailed the second term of the former, or tall tales of Weapons of Mass destruction spun by the latter en route to a disastrous military engagement. In fairness, Hillary is not her husband, and Jeb is not his brother or father. Yet, since neither is hesitant to trade on the positive associations of their family brands, it is fair for voters to factor in historic flaws in those brands as well, particularly with such heavy overlap of in the cast of supporting players between the originals and their stringently focus grouped sequels.

 For Hillary’s part, her announcement ad is vintage Clinton; strategically placed vignettes featuring archetypal members of every traditional Democratic constituency “getting ready” for a landmark life event. The ad concludes with Clinton coyly teasing, “I’m getting ready to do something too.”

 Gee, whatever could that be? Perhaps one of the many yoga routines you apparently wrote about in great detail over the course of those 30,000 deleted emails?

 Apparently not. Clinton quickly clarifies that it’s actually “running for president” that she’s getting ready to do. Standing next to a suburban house that appears rather modest to be hers, but shows no sign of any other residents, Clinton lays out a treatise on how “the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top.” This might be a fitting time to mention that despite teasing for three days that her long awaited campaign announcement would be made online Sunday, the first to find out were actually high dollar donors, who received a personalized email minutes before the mere minions of social media received their precious Youtube link.

“Everyday Americans need a champion,” she announces to the Americans “everyday” enough NOT to receive her advance email. “And I want to be that champion.”

 The Clinton brand has generally played well among working class Democrats in belts rust and bible, but coming from 2015 Clinton, pockets heavy with book and speech money, and Rolodex fat with titans of industry who finance the family’s charitable foundation, the line feels more like noblesse oblige paternalism than grassroots populism. Maybe Bill could still pull it off with his roguishly folksy charisma. Even if we didn’t completely buy that he could still “feel our pain,” we’d be charmed that he was trying. But, through the prism of Hillary’s rigid body language and stilted delivery, the words feel insincere. They lurch the time machine forward a decade or so to 2008, when Obama’s soaring oratory and infectious idealism suddenly cast her as a cold fish by comparison.

In the coming days, Clinton will no doubt be inescapable on our various screens, feeds and inboxes. Her challenge will be keeping our hearts firmly planted in 1996, even as she begins to appeal to our heads with the positions she will eventually have to unveil on the issues of 2016. Historically, once there has been a generational shift in leadership, the country has rarely gone backwards, save situations of severely extenuating circumstances (the assassination of JFK). Have the extended uncertainty and high tensions of the past decade been traumatic enough to qualify?

The electoral moment of truth won’t come until November 8, 2016, but perhaps the date for pundits to watch is July 22nd. That’s when the first installment of the new Ghostbusters franchise, helmed by a talented quartet female leads, no less, is scheduled to hit theaters. A box office triumph could well signal that a new twist on a familiar favorite is just what the country needs to snap out of its new millennium malaise. Underperformance by the film might indicate that, despite the warm memories we’ll always have for a time when a giant marshmallow man marauding through Time Square qualified as a special effects triumph, we’re collectively ready to hop the DeLorean back to the future, where we ain’t electin’ no ghosts.

Random Observations

• I know presidents have always worked out of the Oval office, but I can’t help but thinking Hillary would do well to choose a new work space. While her finger is on the proverbial button, should she really be surrounded by constant reminders of what her husband’s fingers were on under that very desk? 

• I know Barack Obama greatly broadened the range of acceptable presidential names, but are we really ready for a president named “Jeb?” You wouldn’t think it possible for a single three letter moniker to simultaneously carry connotations of backwoods bootlegging, prep school brattiness, and Amish rigidity, but “Jeb” hits the trifecta. 

• I can’t help thinking that smartphone-less interloper asking what time it is in paragraph three is probably Morris Day, wondering when his residuals from “Uptown Funk” are going to start arriving. I know it’s not an exact replica of any specific Time song, but Marvin Gaye’s children got 7 million off of Robin Thicke, and Bruno Mars can’t even send Morris a complimentary case of hairspray for his pompadour? (YouTube “Jungle Love,” kids.)

• Given the current popularity of re-makes and re-boots, why hasn’t Back to the Future been revisited? I’d pay matinee prices to watch Michael Cera ride a souped up Tesla back to 1985 to stop Christopher Lloyd from squandering a DeLorean that would now be a collector’s item, just so the big-haired ‘tweens of the day could swoon at Michael J. Fox in his Calvins. 

• Did you catch the callback to Don’s nostalgia speech from Season 1 (quoted up top) in this past week’s Mad Men? It comes from Diana, during her visit to Don’s apartment. As audience attention spans continue to shorten, I fear once Mad Men wraps, it might be a long time before we see another truly slow burning drama on television.

• Should Hillary be elected, conventional wisdom has Bill Clinton’s title being “First Man.” But, former presidents are generally still addressed as “president.” So, would the Clintons then be “Mr. & Mrs. President?” If not, can I steal that title to develop a Tom Hanks/Julia Roberts vehicle?

Media Matters is a look at the week’s top news stories, and what they can teach us about communications, business and life.

About the Author                                                                                           Jeffrey Harvey is a Washington, DC based communications professional with experience in broadcasting, strategic communications, public relations, marketing and media analysis. He has written prolifically on subjects including technology, healthcare and arts and entertainment. His original one act play, Coffee won a staged reading at the Kennedy Center in the Source Theater Festival.