Eyebrow shape, Obama’s personality and the degradation of democracy

The US presidential election has become a reality TV contest. Jean Smith, who lives and works in New York and is a founder of the New York Salon, presented her view of American politics to the September Brighton Salon on Wednesday September 17.

The Sean Bell Diary

Obama, before Palin stole the limelight, had offered a breath of fresh air from the Washington norm. He preached bipartisanship and hope and change in a way that keys into the anti-political mood of the people but renders his political views managerial. His personal values are easily gleaned from his books. On abortion, for example, it is his personal view, more or less, that there should be a woman’s right to choose, but he would compromise to co-operate on the issue by taking measures to prevent unplanned pregnancy. The political principles he holds are generally opposed to his personal values in this way.

Jean said that the scrutiny of the candidates had reached ridiculous levels. One radio show discussed the shape of the candidates’ eyebrows with Madonna’s eyebrow person. More seriously, 6ft 3ins and only about 13 stone Obama may be thought too thin to be able to relate to the average mid-westerner. He doesn’t even like ice cream! This is shocking to most Americans. The person of the candidate is very much more important than their policies.

‘War hero’ John McCain is presented as the victim of war because of his torture while a POW in Viet Nam. He was captured after deciding not to take the easy way out of the war with a short tour. Sarah Palin appeals because she’s interesting, gutsy, stood against Republicans in Alaska, is proud of her Down’s child, has a pregnant 17-year-old daughter whom she wheels out complete with the shotgun wedding target, hunts moose and married a regular-guy husband who is also a snowmobile racing champion. She has revitalised the Republican campaign by appealing to the traditional voters in ‘middle America’. Democrats feel that they have been patronising to those who do not live on the glamorous coasts of the US. All candidates stand on their personal values and this has made the process a bit like reality TV, where there is little focus on big ideas or strong visions.

Most presidents of the past stood for something and were accountable to the voters for what they did. Without principles, it is impossible to predict what a politician will do. In foreign policy, decisions would become arbitrary reactions. Knowing what a politician stands for makes them accountable for their actions.

Obama makes people feel good, they like him and the fact he has come so far shows some progress in the US from the bad old days of slavery and segregation. People like Palin because they think she is like them. There is a cultural divide between the Red states and the Blue states – they represent to people different personas or lifestyles. Candidates elected on this basis are not accountable because control over their actions is less. It is a degradation of democracy because the candidates represent themselves rather than ‘we the people’. The people themselves are not really active in the process because they are discussing the question ‘Who am I?’ rather than that of ‘What kind of world do I want to live in?’.

During the discussion Dan Travis asked Jean if the candidates really were as vacuous as she said. Hasn’t Obama a bit of the JFK about him? Was there no substance at all to Palin? How different are today’s candidate from those of the past?

Jean said Kennedy had principles on civil rights and tax reform. He was not just a popular person but the product of struggles that were going on in the streets at the time. He said he would put a man on the moon and he did. Obama could not have been popular in the ’60s or ’70s because he is without ideas. People find it easy to criticise Palin personally. How can she be a VP and a mom? The reactions to her show she does not fit the feminist mould of what a successful woman should be like. While Obama is criticised for a lack of experience Palin’s lack is made out to be a virtue because she is untainted by Washington and the cynicism people feel for it.

John McCain campaigns on his personal qualities of trust and character, a reference, Jean thinks, to Martin Luther King’s dream of being ‘judged not by the colour of skin but on character’. The inference is that you should not vote for Obama just because he is black.

Alex said Obama seemed to have taken a lead from Tony Blair. Perhaps, in a climate such as today’s, a centre-left party must try to sneak into office, to present itself as reasonable to achieve government? Tom said that Obama certainly had principles and that compromise was one of them. Obama’s books are beautiful and read like beautiful dreams. He has no chance of election, but perhaps Obama’s principles are hidden by his eloquence?

Don pointed out that it might almost be termed the Obama/Palin race now that McCain seems pushed to one side. Were not the sixties more ideological? Is it still the case that principle must come dressed up as a manifesto derived from Marxism or the free market? Perhaps we baby boomers expect ideology, but is there anything wrong with ambiguity? Perhaps it is necessary?

I think that the sixties were the end of ideology as it existed in the past. The candidates this time represented the very last influence of the sixties set and the problem was that they all were running from discredited ideas of both Democrats and Republicans without any direction.

Jean said that compromise in this case was not a principle or a value. For example, in New York the mayor’s administration was elected on bipartisanship and promising to bring its opponents into office within the local government. Cars will be banned from parts of the city, smoking is banned nearly everywhere and transfats are forbidden in restaurants – all in the cheerless name of doing what is good for us. There’s no ideology as such.

McCain and Palin are supposed to anti-abortion and pro-gun and that if they win they’ll ban abortion and relax controls - but so was George W. and he did not do those things. The candidates may bear the weight of people’s expectations and they have views that are not their own associated with them.

Jean did not think it was possible to sneak into government as the party would need people behind it to win. No government ever took power and then suddenly produced a bunch of radical policies unless they had support for them.

The candidates have a certain distance from the political parties that they represent. Obama was not his party’s first choice. Obama’s opposition to the Iraq war is often overstated. He now supports a phased withdrawal but he has not ruled out military interventions as such.

Ruth lay into Sarah Palin for her hypocrisy about the choice to have her Down’s child, Trig, when her political position on abortion would give no women any choice. And Obama could certainly say on thing and do another. Tom felt that corporate America wanted a weak president and had some influence over the media to make sure it got one.

Don said that there existed in America a deep ideology of Christian theology. The ideological evangelists took their view of choice very seriously. Their use of the language of choice is a very different thing from that employed by the British liberal left. Politics could be fundamentally Christian and theocratic for certain people and it could not be dismissed.

Geoff said he thought there was very little control of the general situation. The financial markets were out of control and corporate America looked as helpless in the face of unpredictable events as any institutions with little purchase. The Republicans have distanced themselves from Bush and his rescue of the banks, which reactions Geoff would not dignify with the term nationalisation. In 1997 Blair was cheered in the streets – that’s hard to imagine now. US candidates at least have something as a type of person. Obama’s problem is that although he is black he is an elite character, there’s nothing of the `Dukes of Hazzard` about him. Everyone assumed there would be threats to kill Obama but the only plot that emerged could not be taken seriously.

Mike said the campaigns contained no policies but were little clips setting out ideas for a delightful world. Pete asked if there was any confidence in the US now. The nice Obama might make a good stopgap president for a few years and he makes a perfect global president, but does America really care about that kind of thing?

Ruth said Bush didn’t ban abortion but he had made it more difficult to actually achieve on the ground. Don said he felt that there was a principled aspect to the anti-abortionists. He also pointed out that young people seemed to try politicians out and then help to vote them out, as they had with the ideological Ken Livingstone in London, replacing him with the less political Boris Johnson.

Andy sympathised with Obama not claiming to have a black and white answer to everything and that his honest admission to weigh things up and come to informed decisions was refreshing and sensible. Something needed to be done in Iraq, said Andy, and perhaps a compromise would have been a lot better.

Dan asked ‘What now for the political?’ with the global chaos and the shrinking political content of electioneering. Jean said that debates appear more extreme in the media coverage than perhaps they really were. No one is control of any of the processes involved and this is no holding operation because corporate America has no idea what it wants. Voting habits tend to show people vote for the candidate of the party that they support and that funds tend to switch from one candidate to another as happened with Clinton and Obama.

Young Americans care but they tend to most active in very conservative campaigns such as those around fair trade. The culture wars of the US have changed. Even gay marriage and abortion, as issues, have changed with evangelicals saying that they need to move away from cultural issues. Yes, religion is very strong in America but it is also very general and not just to be associated with the right – even atheists may join churches for the enjoyment of belonging to them! Abortion is less of a defining issue than it once was; most Americans support some form of abortion in some circumstances (Palin even supports it where there is immanent danger to the mother’s life).

There is no definitive answer as to where the next form of politics will come from and we are not yet at the stage where that politics exists. The Enlightenment created the rational citizen who could take on board what was happening and engage with it. The correction of politics after the event was very much the current way of thinking and it would be necessary to understand more about what is going on. Some say you now cannot have a world view. Jean thought the situation called for an understanding of what it means to be an active citizen and what democracy is. The degraded experience of democracy has caused the death of politics in its old form.

The Brighton Salon would like to thank those who came, The Friends’ Meeting House and, of course, Jean Smith. If you have comments on the event, its report or anything else, email me, Sean Bell the Salon’s secretary, at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it The next Salon will be on Media Wars at the University of Sussex on Wednesday October 22. See above for details.