| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS | MONDAY COLUMNS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« Grab Bag: Digital Cubism | Main | Building a New Heart From Old Tissue »

January 14, 2008

Below the Fold: Tears for Fears and the Banality of Public Emotion in American Political Life


Michael Blim

Tears work in American politics, as events in New Hampshire last week show. But they didn’t always work, as a 1972 presidential contender Edmund Muskie learned in New Hampshire 36 years ago. They cost him his presidential bid, even as they propped up Senator Clinton’s.

What has happened in America politics and public life that tears have become so acceptable, even gratifying? Rather than considered mawkish, a sign of instability, a feint or worse, crying now signifies something good about the character of someone who does.

Americans generally need have no fear of suffering from blocked tear ducts. Turn the camera on, and we turn the tears on. Happy people cry, and sad people cry. Soldiers cry, police and fire fighters cry, criminals and victims cry, and game contestants cry. Celebrities cry. Politicians cry. We cry with them.

Sports figures positively blubber. Jemele Hill, an ESPN writer, reacts to sports tears without pity and with a little spice in her May 15, 2007 commentary “Crying Etiquette of the Sports World.” Here are some of her rules:

1. Don’t cry at a news conference where you’re announcing to the world you’ve cheated on you wife (I would add or used steroids).
2. Don’t cry when you’ve been traded.
3. Don’t cry at practice.
4. Don’t cry before the game is over.
5. Don’t cry on camera if hurt; wait until you hit the trainer’s room.

Tears of joy, tears of defeat, tears of pain, and just plain tears. Some tears say, “I am one of you.” Others say, “I feel your pain, or joy, or loss” …or whatever. Some ask for pity; some are pitiable.

Whence all this crying in America, especially in politics? In Italy where I have spent a lot of time, politicians don’t cry, and would be considered addled or a bit ridiculous if they did. Contrary to the weepy Italian stereotypes of movies, women in black throwing themselves on biers and Neapolitans male or female caught in sweaty, tearful embraces, and so on, Italians don’t expect politicians to cry. They chalked it up to senility when one of their favorite Presidents, the octogenarian Sandro Pertini, wept every time he touched the Italian flag. As Machiavellian as Italian politicians are, crying is not part of their playbook. It is a sign of weakness, of fecklessness, and given that there is so much “feck” in Italian politics, better not to show it, as Mark Twain said, and remove all doubt.

In our neck of the woods where politicians are fecking up big time --- let’s let two wars and the lust for another stand in as a placeholder here – crying sometimes helps them get over rather than get sown under.

Why? Perhaps like many “68ers,” for me, it all begins with Nixon, the Republican cloth coat, and the blessed dog Checkers. Nixon while Eisenhower’s running mate in 1952 was caught using money from a slush fund his supporters had created to defray expenses not covered by his Senatorial allowance. To prevent Ike from tossing him off the ticket, Nixon gave the first of his many bathos-soaked self-disclosures for which he is justly famous. One scholar considered the so-called “Checkers” speech one of the top 100 speeches in modern American rhetoric.

Well…most speeches in American politics today come down to comments such as “I did not have sex with that woman.” Let’s just say the barrier has been lowered a bit, so that even Nixon’s vicious rambles outclass the mumbles of the current bunch.

To recall, Nixon had not only received the slush money, but some kindly Texas dog owner had sent so opportunely a cocker spaniel along for his kids:

“One other thing I probably should tell you because if we don’t they’ll probably be saying this about me too, we did get something – a gift – after the election. A man down in Texas heard Pat on the radio mention the fact that our two youngsters would like to have a dog. And, believe it or not, the day before we left on this campaign trip we got a message from Union Station in Baltimore saying they had a package for us. We went down to get it. You know what it was? It was a little cocker spaniel dog in a crate that he’d sent all the way from Texas. Black and white spotted. And our little girl Tricia, the six year old, named it Checkers. And you know, the kids, like all kids, love the dog and I just want to say this right now, that regardless of what they say about it, we’re gonna keep it.”

Nixon’s mouth quivered, his eyes wetted, – and yes, as usual, he perspired. Afterwards, he broke down in sobs. But Americans had begun to get a taste for exhibitionism and self-pity. Even Ike, the great general, “welled up” when he saw Nixon’s speech in Cleveland that night. “Dick, you are my boy,” Ike announced with Nixon at his side the next day in Wheeling, West Virginia, and Nixon broke down again in the weep seen round the world.

It was not always thus. Who would want to ruin a rhetorical high point with a weep? Would William Jennings Bryan, taking a Democratic convention by storm in 1896 with his “Cross of Gold” speech have stopped for a good cry? Teddy Roosevelt and the boys after San Juan Hill? Woodrow Wilson after the Fourteen Points? It’s said that Cal Coolidge could barely stay awake, let alone cry.

Even dogs didn’t make politicians cry before Nixon. For Franklin Roosevelt, it was all in a day’s work of skewering Republicans in 1944 when they came after “his little dog Fala:”

“These Republican leaders have not been content with attacks on me, or my wife, or on my sons. No, not content with that, they now include my little dog, Fala. Well, of course, I don’t resent attacks, and my family doesn’t resent attacks, but Fala does resent them. You know, Fala is Scotch, and being a Scottie, as soon as he learned that the Republican fiction writers in Congress and out had concocted a story that I had left him behind on the Aleutian Islands and had sent a destroyer back to find him – at a cost to the taxpayers of two or three, or eight or twenty million dollars – his Scotch soul was furious. He has not been the same dog since. I am accustomed to hearing malicious falsehoods about myself – such as the old, worm-eaten chestnut that I have represented myself as indispensable. But I think I have a right to resent, to object to libelous statements about my dog.”

There wasn’t a dry eye in the house – from laughing.

Thanks to Dick Nixon (alas, poor Dick, we knew thee well), his bathos is now our own. He showed us how to ignore politics and enjoy the spectacle of personal abasement – something the former President Clinton practiced rather ham-handedly, and only just in time to save himself from an impeachment conviction.

Now, Senator Clinton. Does it run in the family, the bitten lip, the wetting eyes, or was it simply a Monday morning desperation Hail Mary? Well, tears for fears -- and it worked.

Permit me to recall that famous line of the Army lawyer James Welch responding to a red-baiting attack on a soldier by Senator Joseph McCarthy in April, 1954:

“You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency … at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”

Posted by Michael Blim at 06:27 AM | Permalink

Comments

I don't know about the American public, but the commentating crowd, by and large, seems to have lost its ability to understand political issues in the true sense, and now only sees the campaign as a kind of beauty contest. We're now in the swim-suit phase: let's let the contestants reveal as much of themselves as is consistent with modesty, and get a glimpse of how they look.

The Democratic Party seems to be in danger of ripping itself to pieces over who is more oppressed, women or persons of color. This is happening just at the time that the Republican Party is smashing on the rocks over something approximating actual political issues.

The source of the problem in the D. Party, I think, is that the followings of the two leading candidates (not so much the candidates themselves or their immediate inferiors) see the best chance the DP has had since 2000 to get back in power, and powerful segments of it are desperate to grab the White House for themselves, so desperate that they are furiously trying to kick their rivals into the gutter. Sad that their struggles to trounce each other might actually weaken the party to the point that the GOP ends up winning in November.

Posted by: JonJ | Jan 14, 2008 9:34:17 AM

Tears are totally natural response to our authentic and direct emotions.
Giving "advice" to others NOT TO CRY is unhealthy. We are too conditioned by the "dominator" paradigm that focuses on competition, war, violence, and macho behavior, acc. to Riane Eisler, in "The Chalice and the Blade," and "Sacred Pleasure." We are all better off supporting the values of the "partnership" paradigm that blends masculine and feminine behaviors in sharing and cooperating our resources, our experiences, and our communications. Showing sadness is natural and good.

Posted by: Tom Kimball, Ph.D. | Jan 14, 2008 10:34:55 AM

Except when showing sadness is neither natural nor good, Tom (comment above), but yet another arrow in the quiver of a manipulative and fear-mongering campaign. I do believe Hillary was truly sad that New Hampshire day when she bid fair to lose it all to someone younger, better looking and at least as smart -- Woo! Make ME cry too! -- but her almost-tears were not for her country.

Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jan 14, 2008 10:43:37 AM

first, a brief rejoinder: the GOP is dealing with real issues? wow. abortion, immigration, Iraq, budget deficit of their making and on and on...the Dems and the public are confronting the reality of life as it is worldwide: gender and color biases.

Now for the poin t here: men do not cry (M uskie); women do and that shows they are real women--so it is said. Hillary has also been accused of b eing a cold fish and thus the tears seem to make her human. Remember the senator from Colorado--the n ake escape me, but the lady was caught on camera crying and that finished her attempt to be a VP candidate...

Posted by: fred lapides | Jan 14, 2008 11:27:08 AM

Patricia Schroeder. I have heard that she now keeps a scrap book of lachrymose politicians with a follow up of what the tears did for their political lives.

It is not so much the crying but "why" we think a politician cries. Recently Defense Secretary Robert Gates cried - sobbed almost. But that didn't make the 24/7 news cycle because it was clear that he was thinking of dead soldiers. Hillary's misty eyes were more intriguing because not all of us can agree on why she teared up. Some found it an endearing human expression of a tired woman. Others like Elatia (and me) see it differently - tears of frustration at watching the "prize" slipping away.

Posted by: Ruchira | Jan 14, 2008 11:44:44 AM

You have a point, Fred; the GOP's "issues" are generally not worth bothering with. But my point about the Democratic Party is that, internally, it should have settled this "feminist vs. civil rights" thing 40 years ago. That's when what we grandiosely called "The Movement" was struggling to unify itself and come to the realization that no segment of what we grandiosely called The People--women, blacks, Hispanics, gays, or what have you--could ultimately succeed without supporting and being supported by all the others.

But it seems that a lot of working-class Americans didn't comprehend this subtle idea. And not only them, but now it seems that even the activists, the people who should really know better, didn't get it either. One union trying to tear down another in Nevada! Ever hear of a little word, "solidarity," friends?

What's happening now, I'm afraid, is a naked power struggle within the Left; the various factions see their chance to grab the brass ring, the White House, and it's the devil take the hindmost. It seems that it's all a matter of who's going to get their name on the door as the Deputy Undersecretary Assistant Whatever, and which group is going to get the loot that the White House is supposedly able to shovel out.

I guess I'm much too naive; I thought the Left could be a little more adult about this by now. Too bad that they will probably spoil it for everyone and it'll be President McCain or Romney. Hope you enjoy another 8 years in hell, folks.

Posted by: JonJ | Jan 14, 2008 2:58:37 PM

Tears work in American politics, as events in New Hampshire last week show.

Is that what happened? The polls was accurate but a bunch of people changed their minds because they saw Hillary cry?

Posted by: Sagredo | Jan 14, 2008 4:45:45 PM

Tears? That's what did it? Why is there such a hysteria in the media to make the New Hampshire vote about tears? What about RACE? There is a double edged bigotry in play here--women voted because they are weak and tears do the trick for those stupid dingbats--and no one wants to mention race.

Posted by: maniza | Jan 14, 2008 5:20:23 PM

It is unfair to attribute Hillary Clinton’s success in New Hampshire to the tears. To do so overlooks very real ambition and skill as well as her appeal to many voters – regardless of their gender. I don’t like her, and I harbor doubts about the authenticity of the episode, but nobody gets that far just by knowing when to turn on the waterworks.

“But Americans had begun to get a taste for exhibitionism and self-pity.” THAT is the most revealing line in this post. Politicians are not solely to blame for the rise of public weeping. Its frequency reflects a greater trend towards feeling feelings instead of suppressing them. This is not inherently bad – I agree with Tom Kimball above that repression is unhealthy and even destructive. But there is a time and a place for everything, and we Americans, never content to conduct ourselves with moderation, have rapidly devolved from getting in touch with our feelings and sharing them to wallowing in them and expecting others to indulge our self-pity. Prominent figures went from showing vulnerabilities that might foster shared growth into cynically manipulating an audience or electorate. As a society we condone these episodes indiscriminately because doing so vindicates our own, and excuses us from the ruthless self-examination that should succeed such “paroxysms of grief.” The whole machine cheapens what I would call “legitimate” tears and stunts our individual and collective emotional growth.

Case in point: If President Bush were to realize and admit, tearfully, what he hath wrought in his two terms, I might be more satisfied than disgusted.

Posted by: Trish | Jan 14, 2008 7:32:04 PM

Trish, I don't think I'd care for his tears, but if he would admit to mistakes, and offer no excuses, I would respect President Bush just a little. James Carroll has written that part of a successful withdrawal from the Iraq war would consist in our admitting it was a wrong idea based on bad information, and "accepting that humiliation." The last thing anyone is going to do, of course, but it would beat the Clintonian mea culpa we heard so often in the 90's: "Mistakes were made."

Has anyone been reading the news today? Obama has suggested the Clintons have excellent records on civil rights, and that we shouldn't try to take that away from them. Sounds like a VP to me. JonJ, you may be looking at brighter Democrats than you think...

Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jan 14, 2008 9:07:34 PM

Let's hope so, Elatia. But I don't think that the struggle between the factions in the Democratic Party will calm down that easily. Perhaps if one or the other candidate gets an overwhelming majority of delegates before the convention, the supporters of the other one will calm down enough to be willing to work for the winner. But now people are speculating about a ticket with both Obama and Clinton, in whichever order. Will it be possible for them to bury their hatchets sufficiently deeply so that they can run together?

Posted by: JonJ | Jan 14, 2008 11:17:18 PM

How about Obama-Edwards? They have no hatchet to bury.

BTW, it was the Clinton camp that designed the front loaded primary schedule. They had figured that Hillary would wrap it up by February 5 without any other candidate having the time to make a dent on the voter mindset. But now that things are topsy turvy, the hatchets have been unsheathed.

Posted by: Ruchira | Jan 14, 2008 11:25:31 PM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed

Help 3 Quarks Daily

Bookmark This Page

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

3QD ADVERTISING



Please Visit Wikio

  • Wikio
  • Wikio Shopping
  • LCD Monitor
  • LCD TV
  • Recent Comments

    Jesse on literary science?

    chris on Elise & Me: A Tale of Extreme Optical Seduction

    yaqoob pasha on Burqa ban!

    Elatia Harris on literary science?

    OT on Elise & Me: A Tale of Extreme Optical Seduction

    fgh on Physicists could soon be creating black holes in the laboratory

    Philip Graham on literary science?

    Ulle V. Holt on Elise & Me: A Tale of Extreme Optical Seduction

    Felix E F Larocca MD on Are Black Holes Two-Way Streets?

    Felix E F Larocca MD on After Guantánamo

    Felix E F Larocca MD on Hauser and Morris on Science and Morality

    Pete Chapman on Are Black Holes Two-Way Streets?

    Felix E F Larocca MD on Are Saint-Simonians Responsible for Modernity

    J on Are Black Holes Two-Way Streets?

    Felix E F Larocca MD on Jennifer Ouellete's Top Ten at the World Science Festival

    JonJ on Are Black Holes Two-Way Streets?

    C. M. R. on literary science?

    Jared on literary science?

    Bilal on Friday Poem

    Transleitor on literary science?

    Mike on literary science?

    Chris Schoen on literary science?

    Mike on literary science?

    Dave on Structured Procrastination

    reader on literary science?

    Acclaim For 3QD

    Best Non-European Weblog Winner


    Best Group Blog and Blog Most Deserving of Wider Attention Finalist


    "I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

    "I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

    "Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

    Subscribe to this blog's feed