Salon's Rebecca Traister: The momification of Michelle Obama

[delalluvia]

For instance, I knew very little about John McCain before this election cycle, beyond his having been a POW for those years in Vietnam. (Another thing that is hard for Europeans to fathom right there: While it's impressive that he got through those POW years of terror and hardship, it's difficult to see why that in itself should make him more due respect and more qualified as president - the way US media and US public seemed to accept without question).

[/size]

This was due to the President's role as Commander in Chief.  There are a great many people who feel that only someone with experience in war/military - the more the better - would be a better commander, with the ability to understand what it's like to serve, have empathy for the suffering of soldiers and would receive the instant respect of our military forces.

[Mikaela]

From the Audacity of Hope.

Barack continues, "No matter how liberated I liked to see myself as -- no matter how much I told myself that Michelle and I were equal partners, and that her dreams and ambitions were as important as my own -- the fact was that when children showed up, it was Michelle and not I who was expected to make the necessary adjustments. Sure, I helped, but it was always on my terms, on my schedule. Meanwhile, she was the one who had to put her career on hold."

I am too tempted to prove that Brokeback Mountain is relevant to any situation. So in order to illustrate the above quote, I provide this image:




Seems far too little has changed from the mid-60's to this day, where married couples' relative priorities are concerned....

[Mikaela]

This was due to the President's role as Commander in Chief.  There are a great many people who feel that only someone with experience in war/military - the more the better - would be a better commander, with the ability to understand what it's like to serve, have empathy for the suffering of soldiers and would receive the instant respect of our military forces.

Thank you. Yes, of course. That is what we (well, at least I) just don't automatically remember - the importance of and pride in the armed forces in general US society. It's so very different over here, where the military forces and military issues just aren't important factors in elections and so forth - and where broad and general concensus (mostly) reigns. The military just isn't visible in the same way.

But, you know, the one thing I said before the campaigning started, was that I very much hoped McCain would be the Republican nominee - because I (naively) figured his stint as a POW would at least make him feel empathy with the poor unfortunate sods in US detention and make him put his foot firmly down where all kinds of torture were concerned. (Human rights is my Big Thing when it comes to politics.) Instead, he ended up not opposing the "enhanced interrogation methods" or whatever the euphemism for waterboarding and the like was. I couldn't believe it.
So whether he'd actually have had that expected empathy for the suffering of soldiers, well..... let's just say I'm glad it isn't going to be put to the test.

[delalluvia]

So whether he'd actually have had that expected empathy for the suffering of soldiers, well..... let's just say I'm glad it isn't going to be put to the test.

I'm sure he would have - but only our own soldiers, not anyone elses.

[Monika]

I am too tempted to prove that Brokeback Mountain is relevant to any situation. So in order to illustrate the above quote, I provide this image:




Seems far too little has changed from the mid-60's to this day, where married couples' relative priorities are concerned....

I love that scene and you´re right - it is still very relevent.

I hope that one day women can be more honest, also in public, about how they feel about many things.
I for one have never wanted children at all (it´s the stuff my nightmares consist of) and sometimes when telling people that, I definately see a reaction. That whole "every woman wants kids" mentality still lives on. But I dont get a reaction all the time so I think times are about to change.
But I think it´s important for women to stand up for what they truly think as well, and not always say what people expect to hear.

[serious crayons]

the downright hatred of her in certain US circles just seems completely alien and incomprehensible. I am therefore unable to really fathom the depth and breath and impact of that, and of its bearing on her political chances at any time.

I always found the downright hatred of her incomprehensible, too. However, I'll say this, despite the prevalence of appalling sexist comments and the like during the primary campaigns, my sense is that Clinton came out of that being far more respected and even genuinely liked than she had been. I think if she hadn't run for president, her being named as SOS might be greeted with a lot more, "What, HER?" instead of the seeming unanimous approval, setting aside concern over whether it's the best move for her career. She really showed her mettle as well as a more convincing warmth and humanity than she had before. I never disliked her, but I'll have to say that my impression of her was as rather more cold and distant -- unlike lovable people-guy Bill -- until I watched her last summer.

I must admit that I do see the fact that the two of them have stayed together through all the trials (unintended pun, there) and tribulations as a testament to them - or at least her - being governed more by human emotions and less by cold calculating ambition than their opponents would claim.

It could be argued, and is, that they stay together for the sake of their careers. But I'm with you. I think their regard for each other (however it's expressed in private) is deep and genuine.
 

While it's impressive that he got through those POW years of terror and hardship, it's difficult to see why that in itself should make him more due respect and more qualified as president - the way US media and US public seemed to accept without question).

I think on the one hand, his background as a POW has to be given its respect and due, especially by Democrats whose "respect for the troops" is always being questioned by the right.

But I think the one aspect of his POW experiences that truly justifies admiration for McCain is his choice to reject early release based on his family connections as long as his fellow inmates did not get the same opportunity. That really showed amazing, almost unfathomable, courage and character. How many of us, hypothetically being solitarily confined and tortured, can be sure we'd do the same? Whether those translate to presidential skills or not, it is genuinely impressive.

This was due to the President's role as Commander in Chief.  There are a great many people who feel that only someone with experience in war/military - the more the better - would be a better commander, with the ability to understand what it's like to serve, have empathy for the suffering of soldiers and would receive the instant respect of our military forces.

Plus, the fact that the U.S. has, for better or worse, assigned itself as World Police (yes, ostensibly for the sake of justice and political balance but often for the sake of our own interests) means our military looms much larger in national importance than it would in countries where governments and citizens do not see that as their role.

Seems far too little has changed from the mid-60's to this day, where married couples' relative priorities are concerned....

I think it has changed, but only halfway.

Excellent Brokie analogy!    

[Mikaela]

However, I'll say this, despite the prevalence of appalling sexist comments and the like during the primary campaigns, my sense is that Clinton came out of that being far more respected and even genuinely liked than she had been. I think if she hadn't run for president, her being named as SOS might be greeted with a lot more, "What, HER?" instead of the seeming unanimous approval.....

I think you are right, I have the exact same impression. 

And I think her solid campaign did help move competent women one step closer to breaching that ultimate glass ceiling.... She proved it could be done in real life, not just in theory. There, but for that immense force of nature named Barack Obama....  So in that sense, she succeeded - in a manner of speaking. And it was her own hard and diligent work that brought her there. She provides inspiration.    I do believe Chelsea Clinton is serious and honest when she calls her mom her"hero". 

 

But I think the one aspect of his POW experiences that truly justifies admiration for McCain is his choice to reject early release based on his family connections as long as his fellow inmates did not get the same opportunity. That really showed amazing, almost unfathomable, courage and character.

I agree with that of course. But I wonder - should a man's character just be expected and assumed to remain the same over all the decades thereafter? And if so, shouldn't he also be expected to act according to that character and not against it?  He went against it IMO when going a long way towards accepting that the US use the same methods that he himself was subjected to. Is that honourable? Shouldn't he have considerable empathy for the men who haven't been given the opportunity to prove their innocence or indeed (like himself) to go home, - men held in US confinement under harsh and uncertaing conditions for years and years? Rhetorical questions, these. There are no answers that all can agree to - but I know *my* answers.

How many of us, hypothetically being solitarily confined and tortured, can be sure we'd do the same?

I am 99% sure I wouldn't have done the same. I'd probably have jumped at all and any chance of going home. And if tortured, I'm sure I'd break down and confess to plotting to kill Ceasar, participating in orgies with the Devil on Mt. Brocken, being the world leader of the Resistance during WWII and any other story I could think of or was asked to confirm and embellish. I have no illusions whatsoever on that score. And I think most people are like me, honestly.

Quite apart from the moral side of it, this is what George Bush & Co. do not seem smart enough to get - the confessions are worthless and cannot be trusted.  Torture  only have disadvantages, unless you're an oppressor out to intimidate and frighten a populace. And that's not the USA, of course...... It only gives opponents around the world an excuse to treat US soldiers the same way, with abandon. Yes, nothing but disadvantages, plus that pesky moral deficit it creates. All this is what I hope and trust Obama and Clinton both will be intelligent enough to see....

And from what Obama has said so far, he's in line with my view.

*fingers firmly crossed*

[serious crayons]

But I wonder - should a man's character just be expected and assumed to remain the same over all the decades thereafter?

In fact, from what many people have said who knew more about McCain than I did, McCain's character changed pretty drastically in a matter of a few years, between the last time he ran for president and lost, and the desperate days of this campaign.

And if so, shouldn't he also be expected to act according to that character and not against it?  He went against it IMO when going a long way towards accepting that the US use the same methods that he himself was subjected to. Is that honourable? Shouldn't he have considerable empathy for the men who haven't been given the opportunity to prove their innocence or indeed (like himself) to go home, - men held in US confinement under harsh and uncertaing conditions for years and years? Rhetorical questions, these. There are no answers that all can agree to - but I know *my* answers.

You are right, of course. Part of the explanation for McCain is that I just assume he says much of what he says for the sake of getting votes. Not that that's an honorable reason, just the reality. I think many Americans are cynical enough about the election process to assume that there are certain positions a politician must take, whether they support them or not, in order to be accepted by their base and have any chance to get elected. For instance, no politician can -- or at least, none has so far -- get elected if they're athiest, or in favor of strict gun control, or firmly against capital punishment, or unabashedly pro gay marriage. Hopefully some of those positions will change in the coming years, but at this point, note that even Obama does not advocate gay marriage or gun control, and he supports capital punishment. For conservative politicians, they must also be anti-abortion, and even more anti-gun control and anti-gay marriage, etc. 

I wonder ... do politicians in other countries routinely compromise their own values and pretend to conform to majority opinions in order to get elected? Not that Obama necessarily has done that; he might actually believe those things, but if he didn't I think he'd have to pretend to.
 

[Mikaela]

You are right, of course. Part of the explanation for McCain is that I just assume he says much of what he says for the sake of getting votes. Not that that's an honorable reason, just the reality.

Yes, but he was the one man among the Republicans who could have stood up firmly against torture and unlawful incarceration and been respected for it. And yet... 

note that even Obama does not advocate gay marriage or gun control, and he supports capital punishment.  

Yes, i know.  The whole gun control thing I see as an American cultural phenomenon (one more of those we foreigners struggle to wrap our minds around, constitutional amendment or no).  But the other... **sigh**    I don't think I've ever hid that some part of my support for him wasn't because of his political views, but because of the far worse and more inhumane ones of his opponents (plural).

I wonder ... do politicians in other countries routinely compromise their own values and pretend to conform to majority opinions in order to get elected?

Yes, I think they do - though I can only speak from my experience over here. But it's not so clear-cut. For one thing, we've got a long list of parties across the political specter, so it's much easier to find one that fits any politician's main views, there's not the choice of only two. And also on issues of a more "moral" outlook, there's a much more relaxed attitude. A number of government members, including AFAIK the prime minister, are atheists. Free health care and well-developed social security is accepted across the board. Abortion is accepted by all except one Christian conservative party, but this isn't a make-or-break issue for anyone's party allegiance (there are some anti-choice people in nearly every party).  Capital punishment isn't at all on the agenda, haven't been since WWII.  Gay (ie gender neutral) marriage was just voted into law, though there are those in parliament across a number of parties who opposed it.

No, I just can't see that we've got many of these huge issues that a politician cannot voice his or her actual view on for fear of not being elected. If the issue is that major for them, they'd rather change their party allegiance. That does happen on occasion.

I can think of one instance though where I truly believe the politician in question speaks against her personal conviction: The leader of our right-wing conservatives purportes to be opposed to gay marriage, and during the debates nattered on about the sanctity of marriage and kids' needs for a mother and a father etc etc. She's relatively young, urban, modern, liberal, single..... has gay friends - there's no way she really is opposed to gay marriage IMO. She just says so to placate her conservative voter base. It makes me think considerably less of her. But she also knew, as did we all, that the law would pass without her vote.

[serious crayons]

Yes, I think they do - though I can only speak from my experience over here. But it's not so clear-cut. For one thing, we've got a long list of parties across the political specter, so it's much easier to find one that fits any politician's main views, there's not the choice of only two. And also on issues of a more "moral" outlook, there's a much more relaxed attitude. A number of government members, including AFAIK the prime minister, are atheists. Free health care and well-developed social security is accepted across the board. Abortion is accepted by all except one Christian conservative party, but this isn't a make-or-break issue for anyone's party allegiance (there are some anti-choice people in nearly every party).  Capital punishment isn't at all on the agenda, haven't been since WWII.  Gay (ie gender neutral) marriage was just voted into law, though there are those in parliament across a number of parties who opposed it.

I think it'd be nice ... to avoid the fire and brimstone crowd. 

I'm hoping that Obama will unveil a secret far-left agenda we've heard so much about that includes pro gun control, anti-capital punishment, pro gender-neutral marriage (I love this term, BTW!). Otherwise, all we can do is hope that Obama secretly subscribes to these things and will gently push the rest of the country into the 21st century.

At least, as you said, we have a better chance with Obama than we did with Bush or would have with McCain. And the excitement about Obama, despite his supposedly "far left" viewpoints, gives me hope.