on what's fair game in an unfair game

Today I am thinking about public vs. private personality. In particular, I am thinking about the difference between having a voluntary or involuntary public persona, especially as it relates to politics. How much we expect the families of politicians to step up and work for them, campaign for them, smile endlessly and never even scratch their noses. I think it's unfair. I think it's wrong. It is the way it's done, though, and I wish we could agree on some rules. I wish for rules to protect the innocent, and I also wish for rules that will make it possible for me to mock the ridiculous.

Though it seems unfair to me, I'll concede that in order to win, it is now necessary to haul your family along for the ride. You can't be a drug addict and your spouse can't be either; also ideally your kids will be reasonably respectable. Somewhere along the line we started thinking the choices you made as a family member were the choices you would make as the leader of a country, and while I think that's not accurate I understand it's part of the mythos and okay: You wanna be president, your family will have to be at your side. And they will be judged for their behavior at your side. If you don't like that, you don't get to be the boss of the country.

So: You're a family member of a politician. You're going to be judged. I don't think it's fair to judge anybody for their personal appearance unless they're trading on that appearance or have altered that appearance. Plastic surgery is always fair game. The big nose you inherited from your grandfather is not. Tattoos can be mocked. Acne cannot. Bad makeup, bad perm, bad haircolor, ill-fitting clothes, and the inability to walk in high heels for any person who is both old enough to know better and financially capable of rectifying errors? I have made those mistakes and so half the time I'm laughing with, but make no mistake: I'm laughing. But it is not fair to mock without sympathy the cluelessly young, honestly poor, or hopelessly ill-advised, and it is never okay to assume that appearance (the one you're born with, at least) is any reflection of character.

But you can judge people for their behavior, for sure. Any family member over the age of let's say 16 should show up, unless they have the flu or homework. They should look happy to be there. This is not because they have to actually be happy but because if a family member is in politics, I expect that member to have good enough manners to handle a peace summit and I expect the rest of the family to be able to muster the manners to smile through a a political convention. It is not harder than telling Aunt Agatha you love that handmade sweater, and if you don't have the stamina for that, your family will not survive in politics.

I also think if they volunteer to go beyond standing at your side and smiling and waving, if they, say, want to start their own blog in which their description of themselves includes their astrological sign... well, that's like shooting Playmates in a barrel, isn't it? And people who fall asleep in church while trying to make their spouse look attentive to an issue deserve at the very least to be openly laughed at, even if they didn't actually drool or anything. I've yet to find anything funny in dog torture or glocks on a plane, but I'm sure it will come to me. And it's fair game, don't you think?

Comments

[mig]

Here's one rule I'd favor: campaign blogs should enable comments. I'd like to thank Meghan McCain for her swell behind-the-scenes look at her dad's campaign. Now I know Cuban coffee is like espresso, but with sugar.

Also: What is being portrayed in that shadow picture?

[Mom]

Do you remember a play at Arena Stage that involved a political coup, and the new pres. who was to be sworn in in the middle of the night being told his wife had to come along and stand beside for the pictures, because people think a man will not lie if his wife is watching? It's the only thing I remember about the play.