“Let’s Get Ready to Rumble (Rhumble)!”

The first “rumble” in my title was popularized by wrestling announcer Michael Buffer, who uttered the phrase just before some scary looking men (and now women) were about to engage in a “wrestling” match, or what Roland Barthes, in his 1954 essay “The World of Wrestling,” called “all-in wrestling” (more on this shortly). The “h” rumble (taken from rhumba) was added by a British music group (1994), “PJ & Duncan,” who used Buffer’s phrase repeatedly in their song, in order to avoid copyright infringement, as Buffer had trademarked the phrase. If PJ & Duncan isn’t ringing any bells, it’s because the name belongs to British duo Ant & Dec, more famously known these days for their duties in the wings of the Britain’s Got Talent stage. Now that I have cleared that up, let’s get back to Barthes.

Barthes’ 1954 essay was republished in 1957 in Mythologies, a book divided into two parts – part one a series (53) of short essays, part two an extended analysis of myth(s). Myths are a part of every culture in the world and are used to explain where people came from and how their civilization developed, and why things happen the way they do. Generally speaking, Barthes contends “that a myth is like a mask that shields people from direct access to reality. I can hear your audible sigh. Barthes suggests that the popular imagination consists primarily of stories that take the form of myths that shape the mind.” The very first line of his essay, “The World of Wrestling,” states: “The virtue of all-in wrestling is that it is the spectacle of excess.” A little further on, he says that some people think that wrestling is an “ignoble sport,” and then quickly refutes that by saying: “Wrestling is not a sport, it is a spectacle,” because that word is worthy of repeating. It has, unfortunately, become clear to me that the “myths” about this country that we are currently creating can definitely be framed as a spectacle, perhaps with a capital S.

Barthes’ reason for the “all-in” prefix is to make the distinction between the Olympic sports of Greco-Roman and Freestyle wrestling and the scripted and over-the-top soap opera dramas played out in arenas all over this country. If you have ever been to one of these spectacles or watched them on tv, you will know exactly what I mean. I have watched both, although I have not seen an all-in wrestling match in many years, and I can tell you that in the Olympic version there are no pyrotechnics, no throwing bodies outside the ring onto tables, no climbing on ropes, no hitting referees over the head with chairs, no blaring rock music…in other words, no spectacle.

Barthes goes on to explain that everything in “all-in wrestling is clear; roles and situations are easily and rapidly understood. The body of the wrestler is the seed of his character, which is then used, in each instance, to express a gesture, which serves to visualize intention and passion to the audience. The moral and the private are made public.” The “roles” that Barthes refers to are quite simple, especially in today’s uber spectacle of, say, the WWE and its three brands: RAW, SmackDown, and NXT. They are all about Good vs Evil, and, as in life, you get to make up your own mind about who is who. And if you are going to get into a ring with the sole purpose of destroying your opponent, you’d better have an appropriate “handle” – Bam Bam Bigelow, Excellence of Execution, The 8^th Wonder of the World (André the Giant), The Rock, The Undertaker, The Samoan Bulldozer, and my personal favorite, The Ayatollah of Rock ‘N’ Rolla, just to name a few. I wish I were making these up! While I’m on the subject, have you ever heard of Terry Gene Bollea? Neither have I, but I do know him by his professional wrestling name: Hulk Hogan. Although he finally stopped wrestling in 2012 (at 59 years old!), he has been in the news often, most recently as a headline speaker at the July 15-18 RNC, at which he wowed the crowd with his signature move: ripping the shirt of his chest to show his muscles. Granted, these are now 70 year-old muscles, but hey, to each his own. Why am I bringing this up? One word: S-P-E-C-T-A-C-L-E.

If I have taken anything away from the past few months leading up to the grand finale on November 5^th, it is that this year’s election appears to be mining the WWE’s spectacle playbook. And if Barthes is right about myths, which I think he is, then someday in the future, what is happening with this year’s election, all its ups and downs, name calling, staging, dramatics, etc., etc., will form part of the myth of this country. And, as I mentioned above, with a capital S.

What you have just read was sparked by a conversation I had the other night with a friend of mine about the fate of the world and this country…you know, the usual neighborly banter. One of the topics of conversation was the US/Mexico border, as he had just returned from visiting several “hot spots” in Texas and New Mexico for a photography project he was commissioned for. What he described based on his experiences, along with photos to back it up, was absolutely horrendous on many different levels, and his subsequent interviews with sheriffs and border patrol personnel very illuminating. So much so, that he ventured to say that the single most important issue for this election is the border. This observation was later bolstered by an Aug.6 article in The Atlantic titled, “Seventy Miles In Hell,” about the Darién Gap, a popular and treacherous place where many attempt to enter the US.

Later that evening, after reading the article and recalling what my buddy had said, it occurred to me that maybe I have been, and, I would venture to add that many of us have been, looking at this election the wrong way. Perhaps the, shall we say, “draw” to the “Right” is centered around one single issue: the border and not the actual person running for President. After all, they are there for only a short time and the border will always be there and continue to be a problem. There was a bipartisan border and national security bill on the table this past February, but it failed to pass because of pressure put on the “Right” not to pass it. Whether or not this bill would have solved all the problems at the border is open to debate, but as it did not pass, it’s a moot point. I would argue that running a very close second and third to the border issue are abortion and gun control. To put it succinctly, the “Right” appear to be saying to anyone who will listen: “Don’t come where you’re not wanted, Don’t mess with my ‘child,’ and don’t you fucking dare touch my gun.” There it is in a nutshell. It doesn’t really matter who the hell is standing at the podium as a Presidential candidate supporting these three things, what I am now referring to as the revised “holy trinity” of this election (although, come to think of it the original “holy trinity” does have a seat at the table, if you will). And, probably more importantly, is to understand who the major bankrollers of the trinity are. It has been, and will always be, a question of following the money, as we were told in the 1976 film, All The President’s Men. Don’t give me what I want, the money goes to someone who promises to deliver, until of course they don’t. Next. This is true for both sides: Good and Evil. So why, you might ask, was the border not dealt with the first time around?  Well, perhaps the first year everyone was looking around and muttering: “WTF!” Or, it might have been an impeachment or two, Stormy Daniels, the pandemic…take your pick.

So, where do we go from here? Although I do not like to disappoint, I do not have an answer. However, and in the service of introducing my second “trinity:” “If there is something weird, and it don’t look good, who you gonna call?” Photo number three. Damn straight.

Los Angeles 2024