"Never lose an opportunity of seeing anything beautiful, for beauty is God's handwriting." Ralph Waldo Emerson
From what I can tell, physical beauty has been a power factor in mankind from the beginning of there being an awareness that some look different than others. Interestingly what might be beautiful in one culture could be homely in another. Still Helen of Troy inspired a war-- or at least was the excuse for one. Cleopatra drew both Caesar and Mark Anthony. The possession of male or female beauty has often seemed to carry with it power.
Should it though in the political world when it comes time to select leaders? Are movies seducing us into thinking beauty provides something it does not? I remember one film where Nicole Kidman portrayed a top scientist. Not to say beautiful women aren't scientists, but this woman was supposed to have lots of experience and clout in her field. That doesn't generally happen in one's late 20s... at least not as often as movies would have us believe.
If physical beauty, leads to votes for leadership, where is that going to take us? With great beauty does not necessarily go great ethics, wisdom or intelligence or do does it? Why would beauty prove to be a draw for a leader? We like to look at what is beautiful but when it comes to leadership, where will that lead us?
Was Sarah Palin chosen for any reason other than her beauty? Yes, there was her religious zeal but suppose she'd been the plain and plump governor from Alaska, is there is any chance she'd have been asked to join the McCain ticket? Why else did the Republican party feel it was worthwhile to spend so much money to further gild the lily with hairstylists, clothing, make-up and jewelry?
Now we hear Caroline Kennedy may be chosen to fill Hillary Clinton's senate seat if Hillary is confirmed for Secretary of State. I am not suggesting she is not qualified to be a United States Senator but how would we know? Yes, she's done charitable work for good causes. She's a Kennedy; but if she wasn't also pretty would she be at the top of such a list? Is this mostly about positioning a lovely woman from the left to run against Palin when the time comes?
This was an interesting article on the subject of sex appeal and voting: The Heat Quotient. In the article the author talks about the heat quotient of Bill Clinton. The author said he would walk into a room, and women would all begin to blush.
And don't leave out John McCain in talking about heat quotient. McCain came into the political arena as a war hero and hunk who generated plenty of heat without any help. Today he's a still handsome but definitely aging man (the end for us all), and the heat had to be brought to him, as it was King David in the Bible, through a young, nubile maiden (in McCain's case this mating was platonic).
True, Palin is not young or a maiden but as Alec Baldwin referred to her after meeting her while doing Saturday Night Live, she is a beautiful woman. Baldwin labeled her Bible Spice. Not a bad phrase to describe what she offers as her own church compared her to Esther, a Biblical figure who was also chosen for her great beauty before she exercised a political purpose.
The question is not whether Barack can be compared to James Bond as he was in an interview on the Rachel Maddow show. The question is should he be? After having interviewed Obama, Maddow was asked by an entertainment reporter if she saw Obama as James Bond like for his cool quotient. She said yeah maybe. The reporter went on. Which Bond? She thought a moment and said a cross between Daniel Craig and Roger Moore. Fantasy is our criteria for top leaders???
Beauty could well have been an element in the Bush-Kerry campaign as Kerry was constantly put down for not being an attractive man. Despite the jokes, Bush is. When he was played by the very handsome Josh Brolin in the film, W, it was not a far off resemblance.
Not being French, I don't know but might it have helped elect Nicholas Sarkozy as he happens to be a sexy looking guy? Can anyone deny that his physical beauty helped Jack Kennedy be elected over Richard Nixon?
How do we get off this slope we seem to be on where physical beauty matters? Could an ugly man or woman get anywhere today? Is this happening because of our media? If you know you have to look at someone constantly for the next four years, does beauty become one of their credits? Have movies helped convince us that we need a leader who looks like Harrison Ford or Denzel Washington? It seems to me that we are on a destructive path if this should prove to be so. Beauty is not a criteria for quality leadership-- is it?
11 comments:
Interesting questions, rain. I do think that an unattractive person can be elected to high office, but they must do more work and be a much a higher achiever than an average-looking or beautiful person. Beauty, though, cannot protect anyone from their own foibles and misdeeds.
I think beauty plays a big part in national elections ever since TV became part of the political process.
And apparently money helps too. Have you seen the news about the Illinois governor and his chief of staff being arrested for trying to sell Obama's old Senate seat? The ex-governor of Illinois is already in prison and now the new one is going to be too. Supposedly somebody was willing to pay $1million to be a senator.
Is there veracity in the old saying "Image is everything"? Our culture is replete with the pursuit of beauty and weight loss and "feel good" gurus.Turn on your television and survey the channels and read the magazines at the market checkout. Looks are paramount in our culture. Plastic surgeons business is booming. A poor man will never ever be elected to high office in our country again. Money means more than looks in the attainment of power. I base this conclusion on what I see and hear.
Beauty draws money though, Paul. Obama didn't win because he came into this with a lot of money. The Obamas were doing well, better off after his books were successful but still not really wealthy. He drew money to him from people of all economic levels. Although I will say a lot of that was more about ending the Bush reign than totally about Obama himself. Every time Palin appeared somewhere and spoke, more people donated from the 'other' side :)
Yes, SOciety is obsessed with Good Looks, but with Caroline Kennedy, She is also an Accomplished Lawyer! I think I good pick for NY Senator.
Beautiful looks is important in who wins as a leader? Well maybe. I think in the Presidential elections beauty is only a beginning help and not always. In all presidential elections except for our current President Bush, the tallest candiate always wins. I saw a display at the Smithsonian.
A slightly , maybe different perspective from Mumbai.
I feel that the PR function, as exercised by political vote catching types in the US, is very highly developed. You see and percieve what the machinery plans meticulously. Being presentable is something they work very hard on.
Here is India, if someone super beautiful suddenly came up on the political landscape, he/she will not be taken seriously, UNLESS, there is another factor, like a reputation for leadership, hardwork, and development of stuff in his / her constituency.
We have several people from the performing arts field in Parliament, and no one takes them seriously. On the other hand, the leader of one of our once-regional-now-national parties, is a stout and sturdy woman, from a very poor background, who studied hard, became a lawyer, and today leads a national party. Her demeanour is more threatening and tough , than beautiful, she does politics chicago style, she went to Paris for an official tour, and came back with a chic haircut, and diamond studs in her ears. By no means does she get qualified as "beautiful", but her consituents are more impressed at her ability to get this makeover done, rather than the makeover itself.....
(and her opponents keep wringing their hands, at her ability to make a difference through votes..)
That was very interesting, Ugich. I wondered if this might be a cultural thing and not even long term cultural in our country. As always, thanks to all for your comments. They make me happy when I read other people's thoughts on something with which I have been wrestling.
I have also been following the Illinois corruption scandal, ingineer. I had heard it's a big problem there and it's why some didn't favor Obama as they thought he must have some corruption also if he came from Chicago. Boss Daily mentality is not gone or os it appears. Frustrating and this governor seems like a real head case. How did he get elected to start???
Unfortunately, I'm afraid Obama is more involved with Blago than has been revealed in the media.
There is a good chance he may not be inaugurated Jan 20, or impeached shortly after. The trail of corruption, I am hearing, is REALLY extensive. Stay tuned...you heard it here first!
I find it quite humorous Mary Lou, that you find being an "accomplished lawyer" qualification for the Senate. That is the problem...we have too many lawyers and not enuf businessmen who have hired people, signed a paycheck and have a grasp of what ordinary Americans need from their government (like staying out of the way)!
Rachael, I would not worry about it too much where it comes to Obama. I have heard that Illinois politics is like that. Yes, he came though it which has led right wing bloggers to be saying he had to be dirty even before the election; but Obama has distanced himself from Blago in every way possible from the start. It sounds like he knew it all right but that's not impeachable.
The far right wingers have always been saying he'll be impeached because it's what they want but they wanted that with Clinton too and got it. Look here it led us-- Congress and president distracted and bin Laden profiting. I am not sure Congress (with a few exceptions) will go that route again without a LOT of evidence and more than some rats like Tony Rezko singing to try and lower their own jail sentences or Blago who sounds totally goofy trying to bargain for less time to indicting everyone he knows (something that is a problem throughout the country where somebody can be guilty of something but if they will say somebody with more power did something they can barter for less or no time for themselves).
Anyway from the looks of this with Obama, he had no reason to be involved in what Blago was doing. Like he's going to give him money to pick a senator he prefers when they any of them will be Democrats if selected by a democrat? It's about as likely as some of the birth certificate blog people who are so sure it will cause Obama to be impeached because his mother flew to Kenya in the midst of a turbulent time to have her baby and have to lie about where he was born.
BUT if he did, we'd have Biden and I wouldn't worry about that either. He's not as effective and won't be able to do all that Obama could to help us get out of this coming depression, but people who want no Democrat still won't win anything through this... or suppose they had something about both of them and they both were thrown out. Like the idea of President Pelosi? *s*
Personally, I think Obama is okay on this. We know where he got his money and it was books sales and a wife with a high income which might've been helped by her husband's growing political clout but which spouse in Washington hasn't had that happen (think Elizabeth Dole as only one example); but it will be run through the gutter by the right wing blog conspiracy group and radio types like Rush who don't care about the ordinary people in this country but only their agenda-- more money and power for themselves. It's why Democratic majorities in both houses matter so much.
Alot see it now where Republicans (especially from those states with foreign auto makers) are blocking doing anything for US automakers while they voted in big money for bankers with no conditions at all on where it went or how it was used. That money went where for who again? *s*
Post a Comment