Tuesday
07Oct2008
Why Appearances Matter--and Corrupt
Tuesday, October 7, 2008 at 07:56AM
In response to comments both pro and con on my previous post here, I have been thinking a lot about why it matters that Sarah Palin uses her looks, her cutesy down-home phrases, her flirty moves. All politicians use whatever it is they've got to appeal to voters, after all.
In fact, each and every one of us uses whatever we've got to appeal to our "publics", even if that's only to negotiate who's cooking dinner tonight within our immediate families.
Goodness knows, I use my Texas sayings and small town upbringing all the time in my speeches and writing. I do it to engage people, because I like those stories, and because it authentically shares a lot about who I am. I also own up to wearing lipstick, and I have a penchant for clothing that is both tailored and just a tad funky, like Sarah Palin's black suit, severe but for the peplum flourish.
In our society, it is well known if not well acknowledged that physical appearance makes a big difference in how positively we are received by others, however fair or unfair that may be. And that there is always some element of sexual tension in attractiveness, however, much we might try to take that out of the equation.
But the real issue is that Sarah uses her style and uses it brazenly to cover up for utter lack of substance. I don't mean that she's not smart--she's plenty smart to have amassed the power she has and to have won the elections she has won. In the big boy power games, as she did in high school basketball, she has always excelled, and as I said in previous posts and comments, you do have to respect her for that.
But power devoid of empathy is dangerous. Power devoid of information is dangerous. Power devoid of actions for the good of others is amoral if not immoral. Power devoid of the honesty and/or perhaps the ability to answer reporters' questions is devastating to the integrity of the political process. It corrupts, makes a mockery, of democracy.
Abraham Lincoln's personal narrative of small town, humble beginnings and self-taught law education is revered, not for their own sake but because his political actions served the public good. I see absolutely nothing in Palin's "accomplishments" except an opportunistic march to power for its own sake. I see much to fear and to fight in the political philosophy to which she has hitched her wagon. I see deliberate dishonesty in her brassy rejection of Gwen Ifill's debate questions.
The big question raised by Sarah Palin's candidacy (and John McCain's choice of her for a running mate) is this: In our Rovian world, where George W. Bush got away with the artful dodge so blatantly--and with the complicity of the mainstream media-- have we become so inured to this corrupted way of evaluating people for public office that we're going to let the right wing get away once again with electing yet another vessel for their mean-spirited agenda?
I say voters' answer to that this time around must be a resounding "No!"
In fact, each and every one of us uses whatever we've got to appeal to our "publics", even if that's only to negotiate who's cooking dinner tonight within our immediate families.
Goodness knows, I use my Texas sayings and small town upbringing all the time in my speeches and writing. I do it to engage people, because I like those stories, and because it authentically shares a lot about who I am. I also own up to wearing lipstick, and I have a penchant for clothing that is both tailored and just a tad funky, like Sarah Palin's black suit, severe but for the peplum flourish.
In our society, it is well known if not well acknowledged that physical appearance makes a big difference in how positively we are received by others, however fair or unfair that may be. And that there is always some element of sexual tension in attractiveness, however, much we might try to take that out of the equation.
But the real issue is that Sarah uses her style and uses it brazenly to cover up for utter lack of substance. I don't mean that she's not smart--she's plenty smart to have amassed the power she has and to have won the elections she has won. In the big boy power games, as she did in high school basketball, she has always excelled, and as I said in previous posts and comments, you do have to respect her for that.
But power devoid of empathy is dangerous. Power devoid of information is dangerous. Power devoid of actions for the good of others is amoral if not immoral. Power devoid of the honesty and/or perhaps the ability to answer reporters' questions is devastating to the integrity of the political process. It corrupts, makes a mockery, of democracy.
Abraham Lincoln's personal narrative of small town, humble beginnings and self-taught law education is revered, not for their own sake but because his political actions served the public good. I see absolutely nothing in Palin's "accomplishments" except an opportunistic march to power for its own sake. I see much to fear and to fight in the political philosophy to which she has hitched her wagon. I see deliberate dishonesty in her brassy rejection of Gwen Ifill's debate questions.
The big question raised by Sarah Palin's candidacy (and John McCain's choice of her for a running mate) is this: In our Rovian world, where George W. Bush got away with the artful dodge so blatantly--and with the complicity of the mainstream media-- have we become so inured to this corrupted way of evaluating people for public office that we're going to let the right wing get away once again with electing yet another vessel for their mean-spirited agenda?
I say voters' answer to that this time around must be a resounding "No!"
tagged Georve W. Bush, John McCain, Karl Rove, SARAH PALIN, personal narratives, physical appearance of politicians, small-town stories in George W. Bush, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Sexism in media, communication, feminism, gender bias, ideology, leadership, media, politics, president's agenda, presidential elections, progressive, religious conservatives, talking about politics, vice presidential selection, voting behavior, women, women in politics
Georve W. Bush, John McCain, Karl Rove, SARAH PALIN, personal narratives, physical appearance of politicians, small-town stories in George W. Bush, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Sexism in media, communication, feminism, gender bias, ideology, leadership, media, politics, president's agenda, presidential elections, progressive, religious conservatives, talking about politics, vice presidential selection, voting behavior, women, women in politics
Reader Comments (16)
Why hate her so much? I think it is because you see her goodness and feel your guilt. Sad.
I admire your attempt at explaining away the sexism but there's a troublesome truth here that survives your persuasive endeavor.
Truth: It is sexist to attack a woman's personal appearance in an effort to diminish her character or status when personal appearance has no relationship to the issue at hand. Feminism 101.
If Palin appeared on stage in a star spangled bikini, I'd concede your point in the name of political insanity on her part, but I have never seen Palin dressed inappropriately. She's attractive. It's a fact. We have to live with it. So does she.
Claiming that looking great in her clothes is a purposeful Palin strategy to distract us all from her thin level of experience is classically sexist and demeaning to the onlooker as well.
You seem particularly offended by Palin's multitudinous smiles. Perhaps you could revisit the Vice-Presidential debate tape and count Joe Biden's smiles. If mesmerizing toothy flashes are the measure of character for politicians nowadays, I think the debate was a tie. Honestly, in my opinion, Biden has one of the best smiles on the planet and he knows it and he uses it - and he should - and he used it repeatedly on debate night, sometimes in transparent deflection. Where's the criticism?
And for the record, I thought he looked great in his expensive, Palinesque black suit.
On another point, I'm in complete disagreement that Palin's smiles, winks, good looks and down home charm are nothing but a callous cover for her political ignorance. This woman is the most popular governor in the country who has unseated entrenched corrupt politicians in her own party. Apparently she has a firm grasp on political prowess somehow which refutes your assertion that she possesses an "utter lack of substance."
Or perhaps we are to believe that Alaskans are just 80% bewitched into a political stupor by Palin's empty siren charms. Likely not.
Finally, you say "power devoid of empathy…information…actions for the good of others…honesty and/or perhaps the ability to answer reporters' questions is devastating to the integrity of the political process. It corrupts, makes a mockery of democracy."
The passion with which you depict Sarah Palin as practically devoid of any personal goodness or political intelligence mystifies me. Certainly she is socially conservative beyond my Phyllis Schlafly nightmares but try as I may, I cannot see her in the completely stark, negative terms that you apparently do.
When it comes to smiles, Biden does indeed dazzle. Sometimes I think he will dissolve like the Cheshire Cat and leave only his prominent smile lighting up the sky. Obama has a great smile too, for that matter, and I think that has been critically important in diffusing anxiety about him in some parts and attracting voters to him in other parts. So I'll give you that point.
But when it comes to women candidates, we railed against those who judged Clinton negatively by her laugh and called it a cackle, as in witch. So why, if people are "bewitched" by Palin's smile--by which men especially have made clear they mean her more nubile pulchritude than Hillary's--would we not also call that onto the carpet?
In the end, though, my point is that it's what's behind the smile that counts. Palin flat out doesn't measure up there by any stretch of the ruler.
It's hard to not notice or focus on the more superficial qualities that Sarah Palin seems to purposely put forth, given her staggering lack of knowledge of national and international affairs which has been so painfully displayed during interviews and the debate.
As I repeatedly try to determine what exactly makes her qualified to possibly be President of the US (if something happened to McCain) I can't help but feel as though Palin is saying, "I may not know anything about the questions I am being asked, by I'm a hockey mom and represent Joe Sixpack wink, wink" and I think its totaly justified for her to be called out on this almost bizarre presentation, which during the debate almost seemed like a charm offensive particularly given how many in the media and the GOP reacted to Hillary's personal and political characteristics/attributes. In fact, it's kind of fascinating.
It seems to me that Gloria is confronting Palin's stated views and public persona and I don't see that as sexist. I think she gives Palin credit for being politically astute and I agree with her that everything Palin is doing is meant to produce a certain reaction. I think to try to analyze that, even if it means confronting some unpleasant aspects of our still-stereotypical societal views of gender, is important. And the fact is, some women use those stereotypes to their advantage. Do they have the right to? Sure. But whether that does or doesn't help advance the cause of women is legitimate fodder for debate.
In my personal view, Sarah Palin seems to want it both ways, she wants her private life off limits while she herself uses it to bolster her conservative credentials, she wants to be taken seriously (I guess) as a national figure despite refusing to take part in the *legitimate* political grilling and scrutiny that has been a part of our democratic election process for decades and she wants to claim sexism despite allowing herself to be held, by the McCain campaign, to a different standard of competence while insisting that she be treated with "deference" (the McCain camp's word, not mine) before she will reward the media with full access to her.
I think Rich Lowry's reaction to Sarah Palin's debate performance, which I quoted in the comments to Gloria's last post, is telling, as is the fact that Sarah Palin has not attracted more women to the McCain ticket, instead, just the opposite.
Are there totally sexist, even disgusting epithets being thrown around on the internet and elsewhere by all kinds of people, including those on the left? Yup. And nothing makes that ok. Palin can wear what she wants, wink at me through the TV and any other damn thing but she also better be able to demonstrate she is competent and has the basic knowledge base to be able to not only discuss, but deal with, the complicated issues we are facing today- without that, Tina Fey's spot-on caricature of her (on SNL) seems painfully on point and I am hard-pressed to see McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate as empowering to women of any political persuasion. Instead, I can't help but see it as anything other than a cynicall and even condescending appeal to get votes based upon superficial distractions and an incorrect understanding about what women voters care about, whether conservative or liberal.
Gloria -
The question about physicality and appropriate commentary is a good one.
Certainly it would be wooden and even inhuman to ignore physicality completely when we discuss people in politics or any other venue. The question is where to draw the line.
When does an admiring compliment become a sexist remark? When do Palin's cheery demeanor when deflecting questions and Biden's and Obama's purposefully disarming grins become legitimate game for political attack?
My feminist training dictates that any negative comment on a person's looks intended to demean and diminish their character would be considered out of bounds period - and usually sexist when it comes to women.
Positive or admiring comments are a little trickier to label. I'd think the inappropriate or sexist line gets drawn based on negative or sexual intent. Biden and Palin have great smiles. Complimenting them about it in an appropriate casual setting with an absence of lascivious or disparaging intent seems not only okay but gracious.
When they use smiles as political camouflage, it seems calling them on it is okay but given the heightened sensitivity of political correctness in our society, dwelling on the physicality of the ploy gets you into questionable territory.
And it does not open the door to attack other physical attributes. Saying Palin is smiling to cover her lack of knowledge is one thing, saying her lipstick glistens and her dress is flounced seems over the line.
So who gets to actually say where the lines are drawn? Certainly that is a murky margin beyond my ability to set in stone. I'll gratefully rely on Justice Potter Stewart's measure: "I know it when I see it."
And I see in without a doubt in feminist leader's attacks on Sarah Palin. Palin's positions and policies are an exhaustive wonderland of appropriate political attack material. Why bother with the dishonorable tactic of easy gratuitous personal and/or sexist assault?
I think my biggest problem with the whole situation isn't about what Palin herself is doing. It's about how her supporters feel about her.
From the Lowry verbal drooling to the fact that the "Coldest State, Hottest Governor" stickers sell out at every rally, I feel a bit of disgust toward the way some of Palin's supporters seem to regard her.
Palin is attractive, sure, and sharp and from what I can tell, a quick study - though in my mind woefully, alarmingly unqualified to lead the country - and if I were her I would feel repelled by the reasons many of my supporters liked me.
Again, though, she's not to blame for the troglodytes' support. If we see that she's deliberately playing to them, maybe it's a problem but I'm not sure how we'd even be sure.
Stuperb -
I'd say not all, not even most, of Palin's supporters are drooling or starry eyed. Certainly some are. But let's give equal abhorrence to the swooning, fainting Obama fans. Oh, let us not forget the most disturbing - the fawning, quiver-up-my-leg mainstream media.
ALL the adorers are lamentable. All the candidates play to them when they can do it without being caught.
These "fans" (derived from the word fanatic: definition "insane person") would be fodder for juvenile jokes - if not for the fact that they have equal say with thinking people about who becomes leader of the free world.
Now that's creepy!
It just struck me how Election Day falls so closely on the heels of Halloween. I need to think about that.
Linda,
Sure! I think idealogues on any side are ridiculous, but was just addressing the sexism issue. We could also talk about the racism issue, the ageism issue, and the general party-line ignorance/kool-aid consumption, but I thought that might be a discussion for a different thread.
:)
How many of you have ever been to Alaska? I have. It takes amazing stregth of character just to make it THROUGH one Alaskan winter. That Palin revels in life in her state makes her admirable in my book.
McCain chose Palin because she thinks like him at the core. If McCain can stay alive for even 2 years in office, I think Palin will learn enough in that time to carry on in his place. There's a lot of longevity in McCain's family. There's no reason to believe McCain will die in the next 2 years. McCain's mom is in her 90's and his dad died at 70.
McCain has a history of standing up to his party and working together with Democrats to draft legislation that is a successful compromise. Palin has that same sense of style. Both are PROUD to be Americans.
I like Obama a lot. But I think he is amazingly inexperienced to be president. Being good at a debate, handling reporters' questions and approving campaign ads are NOT what make a good president. He is a great orator. So was FDR. Ask the Japanese how they feel about the internment camps on WW II. FDR approved those.
Speaking of discrmination, I know there are still a lot of racists (especially those skin head types) that believe that God is on their side. I think is is far more likely that Obama will die in the first 4 years in office than McCain will. There is still so much evil in the world. The Ku Klux Klan still lives. I know the secret service is better than ever before, but I do fear for the safety of him and his family if Obama is elected. Looking at family longevity, Obama's parents are both deceased, one at 46, the ofther at 53.
Obama prides himself on "being against the Iraq war." Pardon me ... what vote? The vote in the Illinois state senate? Big deal. How risky was that? By the time he ran for the US Senate, most Americans were sick of the war.
Biden and H Clintion voted to go to war. I can't trust a man or woman that votes to go to war and then whines that s/he was lied to. Oh, be real. They're trying to say that Bush lied to them and they were duped. That's hogwash. Why weren't they suspicious of Bush before? How trustworthy was Bush? All of a sudden Biden & Clinton believe Bush hook, line and sinker? About such a serious thing as GOING TO WAR??? Biden said on National TV that he saw all the evidence and he was convinced. Why did it never occur to him that Bush might not be able to be trusted? I'm just not buying it.
Biden and Clinton voted to go to war because too many politicians looked bad after they voted against the Gulf War. I don't trust a man or woman who votes for war becuase s/he's afraid s/he won't be re-elected if s/he doesn't. That type of person is not a person of principle.
Actions speak louder than words. We would not be in Iraq if Congress hadn't agreed to it. Bush is an idiot, but McCain and Palin are not Bush.
Lisa, welcome.
You are already aware that I don't share your positive view of John McCain, and I have known him personally and politically since his first run for Congress in 1982. So I'm not going to elaborate on that--you can read my previous blog posts here on McCain for more specifics.
Instead, I am going to challenge your contention that because America still has strains of potentially violent racism, that is a valid reason not to elect Obama.
In fact, the proper response to potentially violent racism should be just the opposite of what you suggest, and I will tell you why.
I too have had death threats and other terrorist acts threatened and/or carried out against me. What I learned from that is the worst thing you can do is to back down--that doing so hands victory to the lawless terrorists, or in Obama's instance, the violent racists. It supports their unjust behavior and leads to more of it. Instead of bending to the bullies, we must as a nation stand up together and say, "No, never again here in our country."
If you choose to vote for Obama for substantive policy reasons, that's your privilege. But to allow lawless, racist thugs to rule your decisions is terribly self-defeating as well as unjust to the nation.
You rock Gloria!
I think it is so interesting and good that you share your personal experience about facing terrorist acts and threats, and I admire your courage and strength. I do not vote in the US but if I would I would definitely choose Obama, and I also value the lessons of your experience a lot because they can apply to political contexts outside of the US. All the best to you.
Hello Gloria,
I would be ashamed to put aside cohesive thought processes and look to you as a representation of wisdom and information. There are real scholars in our world that are much more informed. When you can't admit that there is some truth on either side of an issue, then no one takes you seriously except the ignorant and uniformed. Since this is representative of your followers, then you are the one that is using their ignorance for your own gain. That is called taking advantage of the less fortunate. Come on Gloria, get real.. life (and issues) are not as simple as you would like it to be. Don't lead people astray just to promote your own career.
Cyrille-
Your presence here is symbolic of how the rest of the world is looking at America right now, an dhow important these elections are not just in this country but globally. And thanks for the kind words.
Mark, my grandmother used to volunteer every week at the veterans' hospital. She often had poignant stories and sometimes rather amusing ones.
One day, she came home laughing about the patient who had looked at her as she came around to his room and said,"You sure are ugly, Lady." "Thank you," she replied, and went about he work.
So I'll just say "Thank you", and leave it at that.
It looks like Sarah Palin may be doing more harm than good at this point. Sure, she tosses out red meat for the GOP base, but McCain can't win a general election with only their support- his big strength USED to be he appealed to moderates and independents and he at times stood up to the radical, right wing evangelical wing of the GOP, but not anymore. Palin may draw big crowds, but they are filled with people who probably never would have dared to consider to vote for Obama anyway, so I am not sure how she is doing at attracting new voters or taking voters from Obama. And given it is Palin who is throwing out some of the most incendiary, suggestive rhetoric in this campaign, she may even be driving independents and moderate democrats (INCLUDING former Hillary supporters) away from McCain.
And a note to Mark: It's a bit arrogant to dismiss all of us as "ignorant" and "uninformed" simply because you may not agree with the ideas expressed here. It's also interesting that you criticize Gloria for not providing any "cohesive thought processes" (a view I disagree with, btw) while not offering up any of your own - a bit of a contradiction, don't you think?
Gloria, did you see McCain's disdain/smirk last night during the debate when he was talking about abortion and protecting [or in his case, not protecting] the health of the mother? The circle is complete- McCain never has and never will understand or give a damn about women's health.
fyi- talkingpointsmemo.com had a video of that specific portion (McCain's smirk when the health of the mother was mentioned) of the debate up last night and it's worth a second look if anyone missed it