Monday, 18th August 2008
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.
RSS
Comments
No, dear Denis, its actually how I feel about you.
So I use animals as tools for funding? Not that its any of your business, but I've spent decades campaigning for animal rights and helping animal sanctuaries in Malta without getting a single cent for my work. The only money I ever got was as a sponsorship for my website, which I gave (all of it) to animal sanctuaries (check for yourself at http://www.animalrightsmalta.com/sponsorshipinfo.html ). I think you might be mistaking me for Peta.
You say that you fund "real" activists. Care to mention one?
Do you really want to know the reason why we have so many hungry dogs in the streets. Its only because most people and politicians do not care. Do you realise that you are accusing all animal sanctuaries in Malta of doing little if anything at all? After all, I'm only one person.
As for what the wives of US politicians do, I think you are ascribing other people's words to me. Please read my messages before replying.
Now, can we go back on topic?
So you have Maltese citizenship? Who cares? Do you really believe that to talk about America one needs to have American citizenship? Try to stop me.
Do you want to know why I mention your spelling and grammar? It's because most probably that is one of the reasons why you cannot comprehend the gist of what I'm saying. Otherwise, you would have seen nothing wrong with my first post, which seems to have bothered you so much.
And so you are an "animal lover". Maybe that's why you tried (unsuccessfully) to taunt me by mentioning the "dying dolphin". Animals don't need me on their side? I think they'd rather be alive than dead on your plate. Don't try to lecture me on animal rights, since it is obvious that you have no idea on this topic either.
I'd also ask people working in the animal rights field if they'd rather have you than me speaking on their behalf.
Now can we get back on topic, please?
As for "sticking my nose in wives politicians", my point was not about politicians' women, but about projecting "family values".
As for me saying "never be elected" and then "little if any chance", again, I was "bending over backwards" just to veer the comments back on topic.
You tell me "Why don't you back peddle to a dying dolphin and do what you claim to be". I see that you did some "research" on me. I hope you're not a stalker. In any case, why don't you leave us Maltese living in Malta deal with our stuff ourselves. And while you're at it, why don't you read a good book...it would help your grammar and spelling.
If it's me who is slandering people, please quote where I have done so. When I said you were slandering me, I quoted you to show where you were slandering me. However, if you don't keep bringing it up, I won't make a big deal. You're not that important.
As for there being a hungry dog I should be feeding, if it were up to me, there would be no hungry dog for anyone to feed. You're barking at the wrong tree (excuse the pun). If you knew me at all, you'd consider your words better.
Cont....
I would delete the obviously off-topic "red-herring" comments, but neither you nor me are moderators. As things stand, slander and ad-hominem attacks need to be rebutted.
As for Kate vs Michelle - Kate is endearing, looks sensible and has a sincere look all over her face. Michelle is nowhere in her league though i'm sure she is ambitious enough to grow into the part.
If i were an American citizen, i would not vote for Hillary Clinton. For Obama neither,
I think that a number of those who comment follow red herrings and start parallel discussion ignoring the main trust of the article. As a consequence the discussion is not focussed.
Q.E.D.
4. I did not call you a racist. As for not wanting any "illegal immigrants" in Malta especially with NO papers", do you know that most immigrants who get refugee status usually come without documents for various justified reasons? If undocumented people were simply sent back (to where?), we would be doing nothing less than killing many of them. Does this make you a racist? Not necessarily. It does make you heartless though.
5. As for your final comment, once again, I never called you racist, and nor did I call you a homophobe. So your final comment is completely off the mark and utterly irrelevant.
6. Finally, I would like to ask you a question. Why do you have to troll all blogs with your "illegal immigration" obsession? This blog article has nothing to do with immigration. If you feel so strongly about your personal crusade on immigration, why don't you start your own blog (plenty of free blogs around), and let other people discuss the topic at hand?
1. I never said there are no gay politicians in the US. All I said was that gay people have little if any chance of being made president/prime minister. This was in line with my point that party leaders gain an obvious advantage if they give the impression that they uphold the values of the majority, whatever they may be. It's that simple...and not controversial at all.
2. Regarding the "slander" bit, it referred to your unsubstantiated insinuation that I might believe that non-Christians have no family values and that I would want immigrants to come for cheap labour. Of course, I won't press the point further. All I ask is that, before throwing mud, you make sure you got your facts about me right. If you have any questions, just ask.
3. Regarding your xenophobia, it is further exemplified in your statement that you "might be worried of the undocumented illegal immigrants, as we don't know if they are murderers, rapists or racists", when you should know that we have plenty of documented Maltese citizens who are really murderers, rapists and racists. Read the news. This makes your xenophobic fear, though somewhat "natural", still irrational.
Cont...
"The contest for Democrat party leadership was between a black man and a white woman. "
It was also, somewhat irreverently, described as a choice between a Nut with boobs and a Boob with nuts!
Regarding his claim that "I bet 4 years ago he would have said the world is so rascist that no way a African American can ever become president. Now we have Obama close as they can get", this requires a branched reply.
First of all, Mr Catania should be careful about putting words into people's mouths. I never made the above claim, and never could, for the following reasons:
1. Even if this were so, that an American president "could never be black" does not show that the "world" is racist. It would only show that America is. In any case, I don't believe that America is racist (though there would be a number of racists in America as well).
2. The contest for Democrat party leadership was between a black man and a white woman. If people were as naive as Mr Catania suggests I am, they would have been faced with a huge dilemma, and would have to be either sexist or racist. Of course, sexism/racism has nothing to do with choosing a good president, and I would like to believe that only a relative minority vote for sexist or racist reasons.
You say that I made it seem like only Christian politicians have family values. I never made such a claim. I only used Christianity because it is the predominant religion in Malta. In a muslim state, a politician would have a positive advantage if he gives an image of muslim family values (irrespective of whether Christian and Muslim family values are the same or different). My point was that it pays for politicians to project an image that is valued by the majority. This is an undeniable fact. If Mr Catania still cannot comprehend, I'm sorry but I cannot explain it any simpler.
Regarding gay politicians becoming presidents, I'll believe that when I see one. At the moment, it seems very improbable. Of course, just in case I am misrepresented, I don't believe that sexual orientation should be relevant for becoming president/prime minister.
Cont....
I shall refrain from commenting on your first reply, since I cannot as yet make up whether you are implying there are gay politicians in office in Malta (or the opposite) or whether priests should contest government elections.
Regarding your other comment, it evidences quite a simplistic way of seeing complex issues.
You say that I argue that illegal immigrants should be allowed in, conveniently ignoring the fact that I also argue that illegal immigrants who do not qualify for protection should be sent back (as they are, after due process of investigation). Wherther or not they are Christians or not (many of them are) is irrelevant in this case.
You quote me as saying "wherever 'family values'...especially of a Christian kind". That short snippet from my comment was written to show that in a predominantly Christian society, it pays for a politician to act Christian (vote-wise). No value judgement here...just a statement of fact.
As for wanting immigrants to come to Malta for cheap labour, perhaps this does not even merit a reply except that it is blatantly false and slanderous (and probably libellous - except that I wouldn't waste time in court on xenophobes).
You wrote that this blog is advocating the stereotype of the the 'sweet' unity-loving wife, Can you please tell me from which part of what is written you draw this conclusion?
Wherever "family values" Especially of those Christian kinds,
What a biggot you are, so now these non Christian illegal immigrants have no family values.Yet you want them to come to Malta. Maybe for cheap labor?
In Malta's case, it seems like the participation of the spouses will not go beyond 'image-building' of the candidate, which, as you said Fr.Joe, would be a pity and a wasted opportunity.
This 'politicians' wives/husbands is dodgy business. The last sentence says it all: their husbands do the arguing, they do the women's-rights-unity-lovey-dovey bit. How's that for stereotyping women?
Remember Bill Clinton? His "adventure" with Lewinsky and the subsequent exposure, was a good part of his downfall.