Newly married Mitt and Ann Romney “ate a lot of pasta and tuna fish.” Michelle Obama recalled Barack as “the guy whose proudest possession was a coffee table he’d found in a dumpster.” She herself grew up in a household where her father, stricken with multiple sclerosis, would “struggle . . . to simply get out of bed.”
There used to be the stereotype of the starving artist — one had to go through pain and hardship (with preferably a few weeks spent in a psychiatric hospital) to create great art. Now it’s the starving politician. Suffering, it seems (minus the psychiatric issues — see, e.g., Thomas Eagleton), is required for a career in politics.
Comments
Mr. Keane apparently has not recalled the words of the Preamble of the Constitution. There in a few sentences are the stated purposes for forming our government. The phrases "establish justice," "insure domestic tranquility," "promote the general welfare,"and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" were carefully crafted serious words. Using one's background's trials and tribulations can either show an understanding of what problems government needs to tackle or they can be a superficial facade to get votes. It can be a hard decision at times. For citizens, stories seem to reach people emotionally and intellectually. If it comes from your own life, you learned what needs to done the hard way. If it comes from keen observation and study of those who are suffering then their tales, forcefully told, can serve the same purpose. This is the human condition. Scott Brown has embellished his background according to several of his family members and thus it elicits skepticism since his policy views are out of sync with his telling of his life story. Elizabeth Warren tells her story in the context of her research that pinpoints how this society can be more inclusive with different policies. So it is not so much that these vignettes are recanted but rather what their purpose is. Candidates can tell whatever memory they wish but it is their actions that determine if the right lessons have been learned.
JFK also repeated his Mother's reminder that "from those to whom much is given, much is expected." The President has often stated that people like him (now wealthy, though not by Romney standards) should contribute more in taxes. The apparently once starving Mitt thinks that "to those to whom much is given, less should be expected."
Andrew Jackson's campaign was the first to tout his birth in a log cabin as part of his Presidential credentials, and the first to claim to represent the "voice of the people". Since then we've been subjected to an unbroken stream of 'humanizing' baloney from candidates, and while JFK may not have attempted to paint his background as anything less than privileged, he did play the other 'regular guy' card, military service. Based on Ann Romney and Michelle Obama's covention speeches, it appears the 'commom man' shibboleth of the future will be how you were so broke you couldn't even afford to buy funiture from Ikea.
Jackson was in fact born in abject poverty in the backwoods of South Carolina. His claim (not that he would ever have made it publicly) was fact-based. Lincoln grew up in abject poverty. It's awfully lazy intellectually to tar all presidential candidates with the same brush. Keane sounds like he's snarkily reviewing contestants for "American Idol. Sad to see others buying into it.
It's important to read with an open mind. There's a difference between being "lazy intellectually" and stating historical facts. The point, which you missed in your rush to criticize 'others', is that, on America's political landscape, Jackson was the first to demonstrate that appealing to the electorate by claiming, truthfully or not, that you are 'one of them', could be an effective strategy. Since then, few have become POTUS without doing so.
BTW - when it comes to snarky, was it your intent to demonstrate that Mr. Keane does not have a monopoly?
Interesting point about Jackson, geolovely. His campaign was also notable for the personal attacks against his wife and mother.
True, Jackson was subjected to claims (probably not entirely untrue) of bigamy, and even murder, but the smearing of Presidental opponenst with personal attacks goes back over another quarter century to at least 1880 when (as quoted on CNN's website):
"Things got ugly fast. Jefferson’s camp accused President Adams of having a “hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.” In return, Adams’ men called Vice President Jefferson “a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father.” "
And in 1800 it went downhill from there. By those standards, today's propaganda battles look pretty tame.
EDIT: "... back over another quarter century to at least 1800...."
How snide. Does Keane, a well-compensated BS artist for politicians, really believe that most of us "grew up in normal homes with no remarkable privations?" Where has he been the last 30 years? Or is his brain so well-concealed inside another part of his anatomy that he believes what he says to be true? BS artists have done well, yes, but working people have been hurting as incomes stagnate and wealth increasingly trickles up.
Fact is the vast majority of VOTERS did grow up in "homes with no remarkable privations". Many Americans have and do suffer privation, but they were passively and actively disenfranchised. Alas, recent laws purportedly aimed at curing an the imaginary plague of 'voter fraud' in fact only ensure that the voices of the poor will be further stifled.
OMG - Mrs. Obama led the pleading game of asking for another term for her husband, and the Democrat's are following her pattern of excuses and more chances!!!! However, this is not a game of chances: This is our lives and the future of the U.S.A. that the Democrats want to fiddle with in their continued quest to hold onto power.
So what?!? Keane's column is meaningless fluff -- utterly unimportant. So we have a bunch of "log cabin" stories. I'll go out on a limb and say virtually no one votes for a candidate based on what he ate for breakfast at 13. Some of the claims are so ridiculous (Romney and tuna fish) that nobody gives them any credit anyway.
So rather that argue the finer points of log cabinism, I'll just advise others to fold their tents and move on to a column written by someone with a little more to say.