Artwork by Michael DiMilo
Featuring the Fabulous Dadots: Mark M., Dave S., Mark O., Dennis C., Paul C., and Geoff Carter
We should not be surprised by some level of hypocrisy from politicians.
But the Herschel Walker abortion story is playing out at a higher level. Football hero & Trump devotee Walker is running in part on his pro-family, pro-life bonafides. But during his Senate campaign, we’ve learned of the existence of several unacknowledged Walker children. And now, a woman has come forward with the literal receipts. She has a payment receipt from an abortion clinic, a $700 check from Walker, and a get-well card from him. He denied even knowing her, but that hasn’t gone over well, since she actually is the mother of one of his children and has been in contact— and receiving child support and child birthday gifts— for years. (Touchingly, Walker’s wife handles the birthday purchases. Talk about going all out for your man.)
Walker’s hypocrisy is stunning. But even more remarkable is how the Republican and Christian establishment in Georgia has circled the wagons for him. They are lashing out in anger at what admittedly is an “October Surprise”. There’s no hint of the condemnation they are quick to spew at their political opponents over abortion.
Donald Trump’s entire Presidential campaign, and his Presidency itself, is an abject lesson in white Christian hypocrisy. Evangelicals have voted solidly for this pussy-grabbing’, porn-star screwin’, thrice married adulterer. He backs their view on issues, yes, but most of all, they are in love with his White identity politics.
The closest parallel on the Democratic side of the ledger has to be Bill Clinton. The guy left a trail of used & abused women, but feminists in particular, and Dems in general, never held him to account. (Instead, they took their disgust out on Al Gore!)
On social issues, the Republicans’ holier than thou stances tend to lead them into a greater number of hypocritical exposures. Likewise for the Conservatives in the UK. The most fire-and-brimstone anti-gay office holder so often turns out to be a closeted gay. Liberals, on the other hand, don’t seem to face such tension between their public and private personas.
–Mark M.
Thanks Mark. I was not aware of the more condemning details coming to light. “Tartuffe-ian” in that it is of no matter to so many. My mind went to the cultural standard of Colorado senator Gary Hart, (era). Gone in 60 seconds once the extra marital affair came to light. Times change.
The mind-numbing thing about the former adolescent in chief is that he was pro-abortion. Perhaps even in his heart. But with him—unlike most Rs—the issues are 100% irrelevant and I mean 100%. All he was looking for was a flock. A flock he could easily manipulate—and the evangelicals are already a flock. He would’ve run as a D or an I had he sensed a big enough flock. His sole focus is self. His gift is being able to constantly spew out a 200-proof cocktail blend of chutzpah and bullyism.
Back to Tartuffe. The only play I ever laughed out loud at. A series of true belly, tears in one’s eyes, laughs. (…as opposed to that “oh that’s a joke, we should be polite and laugh…ha, ha’). Plays are difficult to be funny, especially medieval age scripts. 1664! French author Moliere. I first saw it at a UW Parkside performance in ‘77. Intimate like Frederick March Play Circle setting, but a box of a room. That one was good but not funny. But then, OMG, there was a very fine actor, forget his name, taken down by AIDS, that played the part at American Players Theater (outdoors) in Spring Green. He played the lying lush to a tee. Reveled in it. There is a scene where he has his head under the folds of a medieval dress of an object of his desire, she lying horizontal, when the half-wit husband walks in and he is able to extract, wipe his mouth and not just explain, but garner thanks from the dolt. Hard to fathom we saw nearly the exact same scene, (pussy grabbing comments caught on tape), and the flock paying no regard, 350 years later…the latter in real life.
A bit below from the play…I had to look up hair shirt and scourge at the time. Self-torture things to show humility before the big guy upstairs. Related, you may recall a religious zealot assassin type, Silas—played by Paul Bettany in the Ron Howard film Da Vinci Code. Silas had this odd chain with barbs thing he’d…well I won’t get too graphic, but punish himself with. Also featured some great foreign character actors/occasional leads such as Juergen Prochnow and Jean Reno. Juergen, like Tom Berenger in Platoon, has one of those chiseled, war torn faces that immediately connotes super intense bad ass…doesn’t need to say a word.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartuffe
–Dave S.
“Tartuffe” — “Tartuffe-ian”. Ahh. That’s good, both as another DS must-see recommendation and as a reminder of the timeless pervasiveness of blatant hypocrisy and how often it is considered acceptable.
The blind-eye the religious right gives the pussy-grabbin’, hooker-bribin’, un-churchified Donald is still mind-boggling to me, as is the adulation that many white working-stiffs give his New York City suit-wearing, country club ass–(and this despite his well-documented shirking of the debts he owed to the tradespeople who got stuck working for free on the construction of Trump’s temples to himself). And now, as Mark points out, pro-life, family-values advocates are rallying behind Herschel Walker, despite what you’d think would be a shunned-upon-in-this-establishment history of philandering and baby-killin’ .
But, yeah, this isn’t just some right-wing phenomenon; “Tartuffe-ian-ism” is not just a weird word—it’s also, as Dave alludes, a weird, universal condition. As Mark mentioned, feminists turned a blind eye to Bill Clinton’s zipper problem. “Tartuffe-ian” also brings to mind the preponderance of gay priests in the decidedly anti-gay Catholic Church. (Here’s an article that posits that 80% of the priests in the Vatican are gay.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/12/four-in-five-vatican-priests-are-gay-book-claims
So, while the Catholic religion overtly condemns homosexuality, many, if not most, of the leaders of the religion are gay—and most Catholics are well aware of this blatant hypocrisy and pretty much shrug their shoulders and accept it (except maybe my Aunt Marge who still believes Liberace was just a flamboyant dresser).
Err. Okay, now I’m trying to think of other examples of the “Tartuffe-ian” phenomena, but I’m out of steam. Help me out here, ‘bots.
–Dennis C.
This is not exactly Tartuffian, but there’s some related wisdom in this passage from All the King’s Men. Corrupt governor Wilkie Stark is instructing his bag man Jack Burden to dig up some dirt on a political rival Judge Irwin. (And the order, it turns out, has a layer of betrayal embedded within it, as Judge Irwin was Jack’s mentor, financial sponsor, and— as we ultimately learn— his biological father.). Anyway, when Jack protests that the Judge is clean, Willie scoff, and states: “Man is conceived in sin and born in corruption and he passeth from the stink of the didie to the stench of the shroud. There is always something.”
–Mark M.
That sounds like fucking Hamlet. One shouldn’t be surprised. It seems the stories of all men of power revert back to a retelling of something from Shakespeare or Machiavelli. The modern women of power are fortunate that their personal stories don’t have such historical antecedents (I know there’s a few incidents of pre-modern powerful women but those were rare in patriarchal western society).
MarkO
Well, I guess we can look at Lady MacBeth, Catherine the Great (about whom the deathly ironic Hulu series “The Great” is about—sort of) or Joan of Arc aren’t very fortunate antecedents for today’s powerful women. Lady Mac was driven insane by her guilt, Catherine the Great was slandered (they say she slept with horses) and Joan of Arc was—you know. Witches suffered the same fate in Europe. Strong women weren’t demonized or marginalized. They were eliminated.
Tartuffe is everywhere. You can’t throw a rock without hitting a hypocrite. Look at the former president, RonJon, Herschel the bonehead, Dr. Oz, Tim Michels, and on and on. All these guys are hypocrites. I suppose you could make the argument that all politicians are two-faced, but that’s a little harsh, I think. Except for Hillary.
–Geoff C.
There must be some pant-suited girl boss antecedent for Hillary. Or for our current vice president. What’s her name again?
I shouldn’t slander ambitious women. Go get ‘em, girl! I just wish they would dress better. Say what you will about the dearly departed Queen Elizabeth, but she was a snappy dresser. Very stylish.
Going back to women in power, they have no chance in hell of attaining the presidency, but the most interesting characters on the national political scene (to me) are Tulsi Gabbert and Maryanne Williamson. The Donald and Bernie were interesting figures for a couple election cycles but are now pretty stale. All the other candidates in waiting are the same blah, blah, blah…
What say ye bots?
MarkO
I guess that I’m a fossil, but just as certain occasions require men to wear a suit, I think that they also require women to wear a dress. Nothing wrong with pants, as such, but they aren’t always sufficiently formal. So, I don’t approve of the Kamala Harris pants-heels uniform.
In general, however, women are under such a crushing societal judgment when it comes to their dress. Don’t dress well enough? Then you’re frumpy, drab, homely. If you dress attractively? Then you’re a clothes horse, too concerned with appearances, shallow, superficial.
I don’t like much of anything about Sarah Palin, but it was so unfair when she got crucified for dropping a few thousand of McCain campaign money on a wardrobe. Jeezus, for a female candidate, that’s table stakes. If they wear the same outfit 2 days in the same week, it literally becomes a news story.
Their other handicap—again, societally administered—is the taboo on women using humor. Women in professional situations are compelled to be serious, even humorless, or they simply will not be taken seriously.
I don’t think AOC fits into MO’s “same old, same old” category. When has there been a young, attractive, articulate, whip smart—even “brainy”, if you pay attention— female office holder? And she can be pretty funny at times. At some point before we die (I hope), the Democratic Party will undergo a passing of the torch to a non-ancient generation. AOC will be a leader of that evolution (or it may be a revolution). Her politics are too liberal for me, but that’s ok. She isn’t getting the media attention that she was a couple years ago (as they’ve managed to pigeonhole her pretty well), and that’s probably good. The Kardashian level media is not sustainable for an actual human being.
Katie Porter of California is another Dem Congress member who stands out. Smart and outspoken. Also very funny.
On the GOP side, watch out for Nikki Haley. Unprincipled and smart. Willing to fight the culture war. Well spoken, former governor. Served as Trump’s UN Ambassador and got out with her reputation intact. And she is already a presence on the national stage.
–Mark M.
Interesting observations, Ye Olde Fossil Mark. Your commentary on the Veep’s pantsuit/heels uniform has my brain circling back to the discussion about Tartuffian hypocritical posturing. While KH’s pantsuits could be viewed as a brave display of female empowerment and a refusal to bow to male-dominated cultural expectations, don’t her high heels give the lie to all that? Aren’t women’s high-heels one of the ultimate symbols of male-dominated oppression, an often painful fashion statement invented by men to please men. While they ostensibly make a woman look sexy by elongating her legs and lifting her butt, wearing those skinny, three-inch heels literally disables a woman.
But I gotta cut Kamala some slack here. I think I know why she wears those pants suits. It’s because of Rush Limbaugh. Back when Hillary Clinton was first lady and Rush was a morbidly obese talk radio hack, Rush buttered his bread by ranting about Hillary’s thick ankles. That fat fuck would go on and on and on about his disgust for her chubby “cankles”, much to the delight of his mouth-breathing listeners. Who’s got time to deal with that kinda shit? Not Kamala. I don’t know what her legs or her damn ankles look like—though I hear Joe Biden’s quads are totally ripped—which leads me to the obvious point—that it shouldn’t fuckin’ matter (but unfortunately for women in politics. it does).
–Dennis C.
The whole appearance thing is true for male politicians, too. While they all wear the suit and tie uniform everywhere—except maybe to disaster sites or sporting events, but even though you might have seen Obama wearing a suit with no tie, appearance is key. Look at the Wisconsin governor’s race. While Tim Michels is an opportunistic misogynistic gun-toting neanderthal, he looks a lot stronger and more robust than Tony Evers—who appears to be a cross between a scarecrow and Ichabod Crane. Would JFK have been elected had he looked like Hubert Humphrey?
Looks matter. Why else do we have a disproportionate number of ex-actors in office?
–Geoff
My latest post if you fancy reading. Have you seen this film? https://opinionoftheday650548878.wordpress.com/2022/11/11/french-film-friday-cycling-with-moliere/