In today’s society, some of the most famous celebrities are famous simply for being rich and famous. Socialites and pop stars, like Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, have become famous based on their drunken antics, fabulous wardrobes, and pretty faces—and not much else. Thus, it is absurd for Senator John McCain to compare Senator Barack Obama to these ridiculous celebrities. Although one cannot compare a hardworking politician to frivolous twenty-something celebrities, politics cannot be separated from our pop culture.
Pop culture has an influence on politics, but at the same time politics is in and of itself a form of pop culture. And sadly in our society, it’s all a game of how pretty you are.
Before televised debates, politicians were solely evaluated based on what they said and not on how they looked. However in 1960, when John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon ran for the presidency, Americans began to realize how importance one’s physical appearance actuall was. Most Americans would agree that visually, John F. Kennedy was the more appealing candidate. He looked young, suave, and promising. Since this inundation of the visual media, it is hard to separate one’s thoughts from his/her appearance. Unfortunately, it is not always one’s thoughts that become the selling point.
Sarah Palin is a paramount example of this: she is under qualified, yet a conventionally attractive person. Her physical appearance ultimately makes her an “attractive” candidate but not necessarily in a positive way. Politics should not be a beauty pageant but has recently become more similar to one. Take a look at the four women involved in the presidential campaign: Michelle Obama, Jill Biden, Sarah Palin and Cindy McCain. Their physical appearance has become just as important as anything they say. Their outfits cost hundreds of dollars. Their hair is perfectly coiffed. They are simply on display in order to benefit the presidential candidate whom they are backing.
In pop culture, a celebrity’s appearance is a large part of the package and it is acceptable since we like them or dislike them based on that persona. However in politics, it is scary to think that so much can be based on a candidate’s appearance since we are supposed to support him/her based on his/her ideals and NOT on appearance. Although Hollywood has become little more than a beauty pageant, we must make sure that Washington does not follow.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I actually believe that persuasion through beauty might be a slight misconception. I say slight because while I agree that it does have an effect on the impression one makes on the audience, I do not believe it is not a deciding factor as you have suggested. I think that appearances are always a part of someone’s first impression, but if you are to learn more about that person that image can change. An example lies in Sarah Palin. We saw the excitement of the Republican Party and undecided voters as she first entered the campaign. Her appearance had quite an impact on those people who listened to her speeches. The McCain campaign saw a significant rise in support within the first few weeks. However, as we learned more about her in her interview with Katie Couric, and her question avoidance at the debate, the polls dropped lower than before her vice presidential nomination was announced. This example shows that the theory of appearance-biased opinions only works if you have more to back it up. Another example is Paris Hilton, she became popular for being rich, had a TV show where she was portrayed as spoiled and ditsy, and has always been categorized with the most beautiful women in the world. Recently, her image has been changed as recordings of drunken parties and sex are released to the media. There has to be a little bit of substance in the character behind the face in order to hold the image that beauty portrays. Beauty isn’t everything, but it is part of it.
Post a Comment