Feeling Intimate is a book that explores the rise of personality politics and the impact it has on children. The author recalls a memorable experience in October 1952 when Dwight Eisenhower passed by their house, and the excitement of a seven-year-old was heightened by the sight of a shadow looming over them. This shadow spoke in a low, almost deathly voice, indicating genuine political emotion. The author's earliest political memory is now rare, as today's seven-year-olds have a cooler time of it, experiencing politics inside their homes rather than out.

The author argues that television's nature as a visual, electronic medium reduces the scale of politics, making it difficult for children to fully understand the deep emotions of politics. They believe that television has had many of these emotions, but it is important to remember that television provides five feelings that television provides and may not truly meet them.

The book questions whether needs for intimacy can be met by television and, if so, by politics as well. It suggests that families and churches should not look for intimacy in politics, as it can lead to misunderstandings and misinterpretations. The author believes that television should not be seen as a tool for politics, but as a medium for understanding and addressing the emotions of people.

Television has become a powerful tool for politicians, bringing people of great magnitude into their homes and sharing the intimacy of their lives with others. However, intimacy is a double-edged sword, as the closer we get to someone, the more pain we suffer when they hurt. This has led to political drama and cycles, with charm becoming adoration and cynicism becoming the norm.

Some politicians are better suited to personality politics than others, such as George Bush, who was a quick learner and a role model for his family. Intimacy transcends partylines, as Ronald Reagan's rhetoric represented a "feminizing" of the presidency, where the language of relationships supplanted the language of public policy. Political scientist Barbara Hinckley has shown this to be true even when discussing the economy.

The language of intimacy gives a president an edge and gives him control over something. Politicians are not alone responsible for this new style of politics. Media personnel, such as Walter Crankite, have played a significant role in shaping this language. Interviews with political candidates, such as Gerald Ford, have often been asked question-answering questions that can be belligerent or subtle.

Most politicians today are erased on this language of intimacy, and they can now speak it without media prompting. Senator Joe Biden, for example, provided his own autotherapy when withdrawing from the race, saying that he felt personally wounded when he was reminded of the tough arena of politics.

In conclusion, television has become a powerful tool for politicians to communicate and express their feelings and emotions. It has also allowed them to manage situations and maintain control over their actions.

1) What does the media do that creates this sense of intimacy we have with politicians, and how is this different from our experience with politicians 60 years ago?

2) What do politicians do that creates this sense of intimacy, and how has it changed over time?

3) Reflecting on your own experience of the way politicians represent themselves, or are represented on mass media, do you feel the kind of intimacy Hart describes? Do you experience the sense of betrayal when lied to by politicians that Hart describes, or have you checked out of politics altogether? If so, what role do you think this intimacy Hart describes might have had on your decision to get out of politics?

Question

Feeling Intimate is a book that explores the rise of personality politics and the impact it has on children. The author recalls a memorable experience in October 1952 when Dwight Eisenhower passed by their house, and the excitement of a seven-year-old was heightened by the sight of a shadow looming over them. This shadow spoke in a low, almost deathly voice, indicating genuine political emotion. The author's earliest political memory is now rare, as today's seven-year-olds have a cooler time of it, experiencing politics inside their homes rather than out.

The author argues that television's nature as a visual, electronic medium reduces the scale of politics, making it difficult for children to fully understand the deep emotions of politics. They believe that television has had many of these emotions, but it is important to remember that television provides five feelings that television provides and may not truly meet them.

The book questions whether needs for intimacy can be met by television and, if so, by politics as well. It suggests that families and churches should not look for intimacy in politics, as it can lead to misunderstandings and misinterpretations. The author believes that television should not be seen as a tool for politics, but as a medium for understanding and addressing the emotions of people.

Television has become a powerful tool for politicians, bringing people of great magnitude into their homes and sharing the intimacy of their lives with others. However, intimacy is a double-edged sword, as the closer we get to someone, the more pain we suffer when they hurt. This has led to political drama and cycles, with charm becoming adoration and cynicism becoming the norm.

Some politicians are better suited to personality politics than others, such as George Bush, who was a quick learner and a role model for his family. Intimacy transcends partylines, as Ronald Reagan's rhetoric represented a "feminizing" of the presidency, where the language of relationships supplanted the language of public policy. Political scientist Barbara Hinckley has shown this to be true even when discussing the economy.

The language of intimacy gives a president an edge and gives him control over something. Politicians are not alone responsible for this new style of politics. Media personnel, such as Walter Crankite, have played a significant role in shaping this language. Interviews with political candidates, such as Gerald Ford, have often been asked question-answering questions that can be belligerent or subtle.

Most politicians today are erased on this language of intimacy, and they can now speak it without media prompting. Senator Joe Biden, for example, provided his own autotherapy when withdrawing from the race, saying that he felt personally wounded when he was reminded of the tough arena of politics.

In conclusion, television has become a powerful tool for politicians to communicate and express their feelings and emotions. It has also allowed them to manage situations and maintain control over their actions.

1) What does the media do that creates this sense of intimacy we have with politicians, and how is this different from our experience with politicians 60 years ago?

2) What do politicians do that creates this sense of intimacy, and how has it changed over time?

3) Reflecting on your own experience of the way politicians represent themselves, or are represented on mass media, do you feel the kind of intimacy Hart describes? Do you experience the sense of betrayal when lied to by politicians that Hart describes, or have you checked out of politics altogether? If so, what role do you think this intimacy Hart describes might have had on your decision to get out of politics?

Accepted Answer

Media :  Media serves as an independent watchdog, amplifying people's grievances to policymakers and…