David Brooks demands more feminine niceness from Clinton
I’ve never been able to figure out how David Brooks ever got to be David Brooks. He’s so staggeringly conventional and mediocre and empty – what does anyone see in him?
Upholding his record of conventionality and mediocrity, he did an opinion piece for the Times on Friday musing on why Hillary Clinton isn’t “gracious” enough for his taste, and how important it is to be “gracious,” and how might Hillary Clinton become “gracious” enough for him.
Hillary Clinton is nothing if not experienced. Her ship is running smoothly, and yet as her reaction to the email scandal shows once again, there’s often a whiff of inhumanity about her campaign that inspires distrust.
So I’ve been thinking that it’s not enough to be experienced. The people in public life we really admire turn experience into graciousness.
Those people, I think, see their years as humbling agents. They see that, more often than not, the events in our lives are perfectly designed to lay bare our chronic weaknesses and expose some great whopping new ones.
Sooner or later life teaches you that you’re not the center of the universe, nor quite as talented or good as you thought.
Or at least…it does if you’re a woman. Because let’s face it, women are not the center of the universe – men are – and they are of course never as talented or as good as they think, because after all, they’re women. Women aren’t talented or good. It’s just so irritating when they swan around thinking they’re qualified to do a big job, when obviously only men are qualified to do that. It’s a good thing we have talented good genius men like David Brooks to take those women down a peg or two or six or a squillion.
People who are gracious also understand the accuracy of John Keats’s observation that “Nothing ever becomes real ’til it is experienced.” You can learn some truth out of a book or from the mouth of a friend, but somehow wisdom is not lodged inside until its truth has been engraved by some moment of humiliation, delight, disappointment, joy or some other firsthand emotion.
Especially humiliation, right? Bring on the humiliation! Let’s see Hillary Clinton humiliated a lot, starting right now. She can’t be gracious or dainty or sweet enough until she’s been humiliated a few thousand times. I can sense David Brooks’s excitement at the prospect from here.
Gracious people are humble enough to observe that the best things in life are usually undeserved — the way the pennies of love you invest in children get returned in dollars later on; the kindness of strangers; the rebirth that comes after a friend’s unexpected and overawing act of forgiveness.
Yup yup yup – Hillary Clinton needs to realize that she doesn’t deserve any of this – the bitch – she thinks she’s so great but really she’s just another useless woman.
It’s tough to surrender control, but like the rest of us, Hillary Clinton gets to decide what sort of leader she wants to be. America is desperate for a little uplift, for a leader who shows that she trusts her fellow citizens. It’s never too late to learn from experience.
If only everyone were as wise and generous with advice and sympathetic and just downright helpful as David Brooks.
Well, you know how it is.. It’s all that saying that she is the only one who can fix things…oh, wait, that wasn’t her, that was the other fellow.
I can’t wait for Hillary to be just as gracious as Trump! Oh, wait… what’s Brooks’ point again?
What Hillary Clinton really needs is a good dose of humiliation. The whole country reading in detail about her husband’s sexual exploits wasn’t anywhere near humiliating enough.
Unctuous nothings written by an unctuous, condescending and self-important nothing. And he seriously thinks he’s saying something!
‘Sooner or later life teaches you that you’re not the center of the universe, nor quite as talented or good as you thought. Or at least…it does if you’re a woman.’
I’ve mentioned it here before, but this is the profound lesson in sexism I’ve learned over the past few years. Men are allowed to profit from and build on their experience, to get duly rewarded for their continually demonstrated ability and recorded success…but me, despite the same kind of record and the same (and in some cases superior) demonstrated successes…well, somehow, I’m just not good enough. Funny how that works. Same is playing out on a grander scale here.
Now that I think about it, this is in stark contrast to someone like David Brooks–I learned some useful things at the time from Bobos in Paradise (though I suspect if I looked back on it now I’d find it narrowminded and inappropriately disparaging of all the ‘lifestyles’ he described), but over the years he’s devolved from attempting useful social commentary to blabbering about the good old days when men were men and poors and women knew their place.
I’ve gone from being one of those people who’d been manipulated into finding something ‘suspicious’ and ‘untrustworthy’ (‘inhuman’? What does Brooks even mean by that?) about Clinton to being excited to see her as President.
Our Mister Brooks is a legend in his own mind. He reminds me of that zinger that’s been fired at Newt Gingrich, among others, “a stupid person’s idea of what a smart person sounds like.” His continued employment is one of several reasons I discontinued my NYT subscription.
Maybe she should watch how our Royal women talk to commoners. So gracious. Except, of course, that it’s actually rather patronising and often dependant on the commoners knowing their place. Also, the Royals don’t have to do any of that dirty politics business, at least not openly. That’s for horrible, grubby politicians, who are all part of a political elite. Not like our gracious Queen.
Graciousness and David Brooks and e-mails aside, Hillary needs a stylist. She comes across as cold and distant. I don’t want to bash her, and I don’t want to ply the line that she’s not ‘feminine’ enough…she is as feminine as she needs to be. She should come across, not as more feminine or ‘gracious’ ( is she supposed to wave like The Queen or something ?), but rather as warmer and more approachable, attributes neither feminine nor masculine, by the way. Subtle changes in appearance can spill over into her message and platform and render them warmer and more approachable as well.
Her coif, that blown-back look and the colour highlights, makes her hair look like stiff, sharp porcupine quills. Her hair desperately needs to be softened and drawn in a little closer about her face. Her clothes, as well, are in bad need of a makeover. I’ve seen her give speeches wearing jackets that seem to be made out of stiff upholstery…as though somewhere their is a denuded Lazyboy…or Samurai. Her clothing, like her hair, needs to be softened. It needs to be more flexible, to flow and sway a bit more. It’s as though both her hair and attire are a stiff, hard, protective carapace that render her distant, cold and unapproachable.
And of course you would say exactly that about any male candidate, too – in fact you can point us to places where you have said that about male candidates.
You’re hilarious, John.
Hrm. Graciousness, huh?
Perhaps we could just bring back the expression ‘good gracious!’? Terribly underused of late; it’s sad.
Contexts in which to use it:
. when repeatedly ‘investigated’ at the behest of the GOP-controlled house for the same alleged ‘crime’. Eg. ‘Good gracious, didn’t we already go over this? Like a few years ago? And several times since?’
. bonus example for the above: ‘good gracious, haven’t you people any, y’know, actual _governing_ to do? Sayyy… this wouldn’t have anything to do with that ohmygosh _election_ we’ve got on, would it? Oh my!’
. when your opponent broadly implies you and the administration you served are actively, secretly conspiring with Islamists. Eg. ‘Good gracious, ‘something going on?’ Does he perhaps mean this afternoon’s tea? There’s a nice garden party going on, too!
. also going nicely with the ‘good gracious’ in the foregoing: ‘_Gosh!_’…
. when encountering David Brooks in the street. ‘Good gracious! It’s David Brooks! And me without my parasol!’
… that last one, come to think of it, should probably be mandatory for everyone. Of any and all sexes.
On this whole ‘inhuman’ thing, really, I think this is how David Brooks says he wouldn’t be comfortable having a beer with her. But then, listen, I dunno I’d want to have a beer with David Brooks, either, so it probably works out…
Yes, David, she _is_ kinda wonkish and cold, sometimes. Calculating, even. But, see, I figure the only real difference on that latter score is: she’s not as good at pretending otherwise as some, and it is by no means entirely a bad thing. And the first thing I generally approve of. Had a bellyful by now of ‘big picture’ thinkers who can’t, actually, paint themselves. I don’t want to be inspired by my political representatives, personally. I like them to be organized, prudent, competent. A conscience is good, too. Vision in the broader sense, sure, what’s good for the world, and all, general ways forward, things that are important, okay. But Angela Merkel, more than Joan of Arc, thanks. The gulf between the visionary and the hallucinating has always been a bit of a thing makes me nervous, personally…
And never even mind those whose rhetoric is all about pushing buttons, and setting fires. It’s a bit beyond me, really, that people still seem so very bothered by that whole ‘thinks before she speaks’ problem. I mean, if ever there were an election that should make people a little fonder of prudent, thoughtful, not-especially-spontaneous people, I’d think it should be this one.
That was astonishing, John. You sound much like some of the least enlightened and most entitled gay men I’ve had the misfortune of knowing.
My best guess: Breitbart has finally introduced a Style section?
(Seriously, there’s a bog standard quality to this stuff, too. Speaking of mediocre. What standard order trolls everywhere are trying to keep in the air about candidate Clinton, chapter fifteen, pantsuits/misc. Had we the time and were we within a light year of equivalently petty, we might amuse ourselves: put up a photo of whichever latest perpetrator, have at _that_ for a change. You’d like to give fashion tips? Let’s see how your couture and presentation stack up, first. But even this becomes gratuitous. And risks making them actually interesting. If not quite how they intended.)
@ 11 et 9
Al Gore lost the 2,000 elections partly because his demeanour was so wooden, stiff and distant. Naomi Wolf ( I believe ) suggested he wear ‘earth tones’ in an effort to overcome and\or compensate for that behavioral flaw. It helped, but wasn’t sufficient to push him over the top.
Hillary has all the charisma of a wooden lamp-post. If her handlers refuse to let a couple of gay guys have a go at her appearance, it may well cost her the election.
Back in the ’60 debates, had someone bothered to spray anti-perspirant ( or something!) on Nixon’s face, he could well have won the election.
Appearances are everything. How many photos of FDR show him sitting in his wheelchair?
People don’t trust Hillary and her style only serves to reinforce that mistrust.
You find this hilarious now, but you may not be laughing come November.
I don’t think what you’re describing is about how she dresses and does her hair, it’s about her ability to appear natural and unself-conscious, which is difficult. Some politicians are very good at seeming normal but anyone who gets to the very top is probably abnormal by default. I would guess that she gets plenty of advice in all of that but imagine how weird it would feel trying to act normal in clothes you would never have chosen to wear.
I can do that happily in the context of costume because that is acting and I’m pretending to be someone else anyway but I was very self-concious as a bridesmaid at my sister’s wedding with a hairstyle I’d never have had by choice. I relaxed a lot when I got to the point in the evening where I could ask my mother to remove the 200 or so hair clips and just have it loose again.
John, Al Gore lost the 2000 election because the electoral college system gave the election to the candidate who received fewer votes.
And I don’t want to hear anymore about having a beer with the candidate. Would I invite Trump to my house for a beer? Not in a million light years. Would I willingly sit down and have a wine cooler and a long conversation with Hillary? Yes. You betcha, to quote someone who should remain nameless forever.
When we get “likeable” we get Trump, Plain, Bush, Reagan. What we need is not an extreme makeover for Hillary to suit you, but a makeover for the electorate that leads them to want a candidate who is educated, intelligent, and has a clue, not one that acts like a TV star (or is a TV star) and entertains them.
In short, Hillary needs to look more like a “woman”. Then, when she is more gracious, more feminine, more “woman”, she will be too weak to govern. This is a no-win situation for her, and I think she needs to campaign in a way that she is comfortable with, and our job shouldn’t be telling her how to dress or do her hair, but trying to educate our friends, family, and the electorate on what is really important. I’ll give you a hint. It isn’t earth tones, or beer, or smiles.
You can coach her on reality all you want. I have no doubt she has every bit as clear a grasp of reality as you do. She’s been swimming in hate for 25 years now, and she is a truly amazing individual to still have her head above water. So you can just take your fashion advice and….and…go do something biologically impossible. (I’m being gracious, OK?)
Given that she’s spent nearly three decades being trashed for being a public figure at all – for every action or inaction of her’s, her husband’s, her daughter’s, or their associates’ that can possibly be made suspicious – that she’s still putting herself out there, and now (again!) under the presidential candidate microscope… is it any wonder that she’s not got a loose, carefree, easy, “gracious” demeanor?
What kind of inhuman, unfeeling political machine possibly could be the picture of cheerful soft strength and confidence under those conditions?
And if she were a male candidate with this “problem” – would we be reading hair styling suggestions this soon? Clothing tips? Oh sure, not never – there’s that Al Gore example – but certainly even the commentary on the image projected won’t be that superficial that readily.
The mind boggles that they’ve got to dredge up bits about one candidate’s stiffness when the other would be an easy, natural, comfortable presence at a cross-burning!
Just look at this. Read the comments
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3763606/Huma-Abedin-smiles-Hamptons-Hillary-Clinton-just-learning-husband-Anthony-Weiner-sexted-woman-semi-nude-pic-bed-sleeping-son.html#comments
No.
The mind boggles that they’ve got to dredge up bits about one candidate’s stiffness when the other would be an easy, natural, comfortable presence at a cross-burning!
That.
Myrrhine: “I don’t think what you’re describing is about how she dresses and does her hair, it’s about her ability to appear natural and unself-conscious”
The important word is”appear.” Any politician who looks at ease while performing — because that’s what you’re doing in any public appearance — is a good actor. Look at Reagan. The kindliest old grandad to ever steal pennies from a baby.
Nobody, John included, is ever “themselves” while performing. So what John is saying is being a good actor is the most important part of getting elected.
That may be empirically true, but it only means our system is despicable.
For every man who states out loud that woman X needs to do a little more Y in order to come off as Z, there is another man who will state with the same voice of absolute objective impartial truth that if only she did a little less Y she’d come off better as Z. Every man has his own standard of what’s ‘appropriate’, ‘professional’, ‘attractive’, etc. and every man thinks his is shared by all of humanity, and any woman who doesn’t know it must be a bit thick.
http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/imageehj_thumb.jpg
http://www.brandingmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/terre-des-femmes.jpg
http://adsoftheworld.com/sites/default/files/terre_des_femmes2_aotw.jpg
I stopped reading at the suggestion that the email scandal means her campaign ‘has the whiff of inhumanity.’ Fucking what.
It ain’t the whiff of ungraciousness that bothers me about HRC; it’s the stench of graft and corruption. Still she’s a better choice than trump.