Two for the price of one

I am not writing about the sales season and the offers that are presented to buyers at that time of year. I am writing about politics which is quite akin to the sales season.

During the sales season, outlet owners try to sell us their stuff by promoting special offers, like “two for the price of one” or a hefty discount. In our culture, marketing has taken over politics and the similarities with the sales season are enormous.

The United States is the champion of the notion that politics is not much more than a marketable commodity. Whenever they have a presidential campaign they used to publish a book – perhaps they still do - titled “The Making of the President”. This used to study the makings and machinations of the electoral campaign. Then they started publishing a book called “The Selling of the President” because in the word of one commentator electing a president and selling toothpaste is not much different. No great surprise considering that the presidential campaign is expected to cost more than a billion dollars!

In both kind of campaigns many offers are made not just the offer of “buy one get one free”. Generally during a political campaign the most discounted item is the truth.

Kate versus Michelle?

Our local political campaigns have moved in the same direction. We moved from choosing programmes to choosing personalities. We moved form speeches to sound bytes, from political meetings to political spectacles or happenings. Politicians have to go around being nice to people, kissing babies, signing flags, smiling to all and one, engaging in small talk etc. They also have to present policies which people can associate with. But it is now very difficult to associate with a policy which is being presented by someone who does not look good on TV. If you are not TV compliant you will probably not be perceived as a credible and capable politician.

Now we have moved another step in the Americanisation of our politics. We don’t just choose a candidate. We will now choose a candidate and his wife. During the last electoral campaign the Partit Nazzjonalista marketed Lawrence and Kate Gonzi, almost as if this was the President/Vice President ticket. Now for the first time the Labour Party will be countering with its own “pay for one, get two” marketing ploy. So the next general election will not be Lawrence vs. Joseph but it will be Lawrence and Kate against Joseph and Michelle.

We can look at this reality from different perspectives. Let me just propose one question. Will be presence of the candidate’s wives – we are still far away from speaking of the candidate’s husband – enhance the role of women in our society?

Candidates’ wives and media sexism

I will here use quotes from the posting by Lisa Witter on AlterNet on June 27, 2008 (http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/89465/). She was commenting on the media coverage of Michelle (Obama’s wife not Joseph’s) and Cindy (McCain’s wife).

Witter notes that: “Media coverage everywhere is "Michelle vs. Cindy." Where do they buy their dresses? Do they make bacon for breakfast? And, of course, which one can we compare to Jackie O? Is anyone else as appalled as I am at how quickly we have gone back to thinking of women in the oldest of stereotypes -- as only wives and mothers?”

“In "Michelle Obama Highlights Her Warmer Side" in The New York Times Thursday, TV critic Alessandra Stanley wrote that "Mrs. Obama distanced herself from that model [of the assertive career woman] on The View, describing herself as a mother and not mentioning her law career or her views on policy."

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a wife and a mother. Quite the contrary, both are big plusses. But as Witter notes: “How does not mentioning her career or policy positions make her warmer? Isn't this just another case of someone deciding that people can't handle a strong woman? Isn't this just another case of wives and women being forced into the "seen and not heard" box?”

Witter is right to assert that “We should be holding the media accountable for perpetuating stereotypes. If a white woman is strong, she's considered cold -- as the coverage of Cindy McCain has shown. If a black woman is strong, she's obviously angry -- so go the accusations about Michelle Obama.”

Back to Malta

We will still have to see how the media will handle Kate and Michelle. Will they report their contribution in stereotypical roles or not? One hopes that both ladies will look at their role in politics not just (and not mainly) as a boost to their husband’s careers. Their role is a golden opportunity to strengthen women’s role in society and fight against all sorts and stereotypes and discriminations. Seen from this perspective they will discover that there is much more that unites them than divides them.

Good news

Everyone must have been relieved to read or hear that the condition of Dr Karl Chircop has improved. Let us keep on hoping and praying that it will improve further.