Palin's 15 Minutes of Fame/2

McCain's campaign released today a statement to let the world know that Bristol Palin, the 17-year-old daughter of John McCain’s running mate, is five months pregnant, but has "the love and support of her family." No less. The statement goes on saying that "Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family." The young man is not even named, and the text convey a certain lack of enthusiasm.

It seems fair to report that, in answering to a 2006 Gubernatorial Candidate Questionnaire, Palin stated that she didn't support "explicit sex-education programs." Too bad. Maybe now Governor Palin will change her mind about what 17-year-old girls should learn in high-school.

____

Arthur Miller, Where Are You When We Need You?

Many scholars of American political campaigns remember how the mainstream press savaged Al Gore in his debates of October 2000 with George W. Bush, because of his "pedantic" attitude. Pundits took issue with his puzzled and exasperated look listening to the nonsense mumbled by his opponent: "Lack of respect," "pretentiousness," "arrogance" were the judgments of his critics. No columnist seemed interested in evaluating Bush's arguments, and in in saying whether Gore's detailed observations were correct or not. The late Arthur Miller, in his excellent I presidenti americani e l'arte di recitare (1) remarked that newspapermen became movie critics: they were interested only in the performance of the two "actors" on stage, and perfectly indifferent to the issues discussed. Who was more briliant? Who did find the best one-liner? That one was the "winner," and therefore should become President of the United States.
Apparently, not much has changed since 2000: last Tuesday there was a tense debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the last one before March 4th critical primaries in Texas and in Ohio. What was the focus of New York Times's ADAM NAGOURNEY in his piece? Writing about Hillary Clinton, he observed: "in contrast to other debates where she mixed a warm smile with a sharp attack — she was stern and tense through most of the evening, speaking in an almost fatigued monotone as she recounted her criticisms of Mr. Obama, some of them new but many of them familiar. She often sat staring unsmiling at Mr. Obama and at Tim Russert of NBC News."
Too bad, "she was stern and tense through most of the evening" and therefore is not qualified to be President of the USA. She was "speaking in an almost fatigued monotone" and this is not acceptable. She "sat staring unsmiling" and therefore her political proposals about health care, taxes or foreign policy passed away. Well, if this is the tone and substance of the campaign, as seen by the New York Times, there isn't much hope for American democracy in 2008.

(1)We couldn't find an English edition for this text, and we'll be grateful to the reader who will point out to one.

A Matter of Personality?

The campaign of 2008, as those in 2004 and 2000 seems to be dominated by the question: “Who are these men and this woman?” Notwithstanding their long record of public service, Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain are engaged in refining the answer, offering the voters "new" and "better" insights on their own personality, sometimes tryng of "creating" a new one, as senator McCain does, pretending of having always been more conservative, and faithful to the party line, than he was.
Senator Barack Obama has the advantage of presenting a very short record, and therefore his image so far is "new" and appealing.
With the three candidates, spouses and children are prominently displayed, moments of devotion and prayer recorded by the cameras, hobbies and pets presented as evidence that the candidates are close to the common man. Better: that they ARE the common man, plus uncommon courage and determination. Who will be the most convincing performer is a matter for November 4th to reveal.
Albeit hardly new in American public life (one has only to think to the 1892 election of Grover Cleveland, or to Richard Nixon’s autodefense in TV, or to the Clinton-Lewinsky soap opera) the obsession for the private life of the politician has not been investigated in depth. It is often understood as a despicable result of the new role of the media, or of the rise of negative advertising. Here is a massive volume of 2003 that offers a large amount of scholarship useful to situate historically what Jean Bethke Elshtain called the “displacement of politics” in the US (Elshtain 1997, 166).
The book is "Public and Private in American History", edited by a group of Italian historians: Raffaella Baritono, Daria Frezza, Alessandra Lorini, Maurizio Vaudagna and Elisabetta Vezzosi.
The work was published by Otto, a publishing house based in Italy that produces texts in English, too.
The editors have collected an impressive number of essays, 27 in all, dealing with various topics, but the focus of the book is on the progressive erosion of the public-private dichotomy, a process that should be investigated in its historical development. Isaac Kramnick, for example, traces the now-forgotten origins of the Constitution as a “Godless document” (bitterly opposed by Anti-federalists) and argues that the Bush administration faith-based initiatives (not to mention photo opportunities of the cabinet meeting to pray) “are turning [James Madison] over in his grave” and that “Franklin, Jefferson and even Washington, would be appalled with all the God talk in American public life [today].” (Kramnick 2003: 29).
But how did we arrive where we are now? Alan Brinkley looks at "Public and Private in the Culture of the Sixties" (a timely essay, 40 years after 1968), Daria Frezza at "The Public Boundaries of the Private Sphere in the Discourse of Early Twentieth-Century Social Science", Raffaella Baritono at the reflections of women social scientistis in the Progressive era. The current confusion and pitiful state of the public discourse are the result of processes that developed over the entire Twentieth century, and accelerated after 1989. Weintraub: “While the public/private distinction is inherently problematic and often treacherous, frequently confusing and potentially misleading, it is also a powerful instrument of social analysis and moral reflection.” (Weintraub 1997: 38).
While one may regret the absence of essays dealing with the impact of the media on the issue discussed (with the exception of Maurizio Vaudagna’s piece about Roosevelt’s use of the radio), this volume is full of interesting contributions and will be useful to scholars and students alike in this year of elections.

Fabrizio Tonello


Baritono et al. (eds.), "Public and Private in American History. State, Family, Subjectivity in the Twentieth Century, OTTO: Turin, 2003".
Elshtain, J. B., "The displacement of politics", in: Weintraub-Kumar (eds.), pp. 166:181.
Kramnick, I. "A Moral Republic: Public and Private in the Political Thought of the Founders", in Baritono et al., pp. 13:30.
Weintraub-Kumar (eds.), "Public and Private in Thought and Practice", University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1997.
Weintraub, J., "The public/private distinction", in ib., pp. 1:42.