This grows out of my fed-uppedness with a thread at EA Forums. The thread was started with the story of John Edwards' $400 haircut, with a comment to the effect of "Isn't this interesting? And don't you think it's important to know these things about presidential candidates?"
Well, it's not, which was also the reaction for the first few replies, and no, I don't. It's not newsworthy, in any sense, and the first thing I would do would be to wonder why anyone was killing trees and/or electrons to push a story like this. Turns out this version started at Politico. Oh. OK.
What struck me, particularly after I pointed out that this was an old Republican campaign trope left over from the last presidential election (complete with a link to Adam Nagourney's NYT piece taking the blame -- sort of), was that those who brought it up not only refused to consider that the whole story might be a right-wing smear attempt -- with the MSM piling on for the ride -- but that they accused me of partisanship because I insisted on looking under the surface. I think I finally hit the "to hell with this" point when, after all the complaints about "knee-jerk partisanship," someone pointed out that the lesson to be learned was "not tell anyone how much your haircuts cost." And then insisted that was the real lesson.
Jesus H. K. Hornblower Christ. I don't think I need to say any more about that grand conclusion.
Call it cause and effect. That's the effect. Here's something about the causes. From Jamison Foser, at Media Matters:
Cavuto suggests it's hypocritical for Edwards, a wealthy man, to want to eradicate poverty. That is essentially what Beck and Cafferty and Tucker said, too. And it's what The Washington Post's Bill Hamilton suggested when he justified front-page treatment for the article about Edwards' house sale by pointing out that it involved a "presidential candidate [who] just happens to be a millionaire who is basing his campaign on a populist appeal to the common man."
This is simply insane.
It is no more an example of "hypocrisy" for a rich man to want to help the poor and middle class than it is "ironic" to experience rain on your wedding day. That just isn't what the word means.
An example of hypocrisy would be a politician who claims to care about the poor and middle class while pursuing policies that line the pockets of the wealthy at the expense of the rest of the nation. A "compassionate conservative," for example. That's hypocrisy.
A rich man who says he cares about poverty and pursues policies designed to fight it? That isn't hypocrisy, that's empathy.
There's also a post at Carpetbagger Report about Roger Simon and The Haircut.
The comments on this are interesting, particularly those relating to Edwards as a populist candidate and populism in general. There's also an illuminating list of Edwards' legislation -- which you haven't heard about from WaPo or NYT. It's much more "newsworthy" (and, dare I say it, useful for those with a desire for access to power) to focus on a $400 haircut -- which, let us remember, is something that Edwards can well afford. I know people who routinely pay that much for haircuts. They are also very much committed to a more equitable society: they feel they've been given great opportunities and that they should give something back. The press, however, would much rather have us think there's something wrong with being rich and caring about people who aren't, and that being rich and not giving a damn about anyone else is fine.
And, regrettably, there are those who will buy into it. Happily.
2 comments:
I keep seeing all this stuff about $400 haircut and wondering why the rational explanation for the charge is never mentioned. The haircut itself was not $400; the barber/stylist/whatever he calls himself was quoted in the MSM, although obviously not prominently enough, as saying that a good chunk of the charge had to do with his (a) travelling to do the cut and (b) losing a couple of days' worth of regular salon business. Does anyone point to Hilary Clinton's obviously very expensive cut/color/styling and say she's a hypocrite? They may accuse her of hypocrisy, but not for her hair care. The fact that the loudest voices won't let this non-story die tells me more about their fear of Edwards than it does about his experience, attitudes or goals.
The $400 haircut -- why it cost that much, etc. -- wasn't the point. It's just a rehash of the "Breck Boy" mantra, with the goal of making Edwards look shallow and effeminate. That's been the Republican strategy against Democrats for ages, and Nagourney, NYT, and all the major outlets just jumped on the bandwagon even though they knew it was nothing more than a smear.
Edwards also has what looks like a solid policy for universal health care. You won't find much on the actual substance of the plan in the media. You will find a lot of quotes from "experts" saying "it's old ideas" and "it won't work," but nothing on the details (and, I might add, nothing on why it won't work). Nor will you find a whole lot from other experts who say it will work and the plan makes use of proven methods.
And of course, there's Laura Bush's $700 haircut. That's not newsworthy. I guess because Laura Bush doesn't even pretend to care about the poor and working families.
Post a Comment