A comment from Stan
It’s just terrible of me, but I am enjoying this little to-do over pigs and lipstick. It’s time set aside, now, to visit with an old friend, a well-worn cliché, a metaphor that hung around a little long, became self-conscious and realized that there was a sexism at its own root. Of course Wall Street laid hold of the metaphor long ago. You should know, pigs and lipstick are mentioned, at a minumum, three times per hour on CNBC, the money channel, where the business folk have honed the language down to the most essentially communicative nub. I believe they have a rule about dragging out the lipstick/ pig graphics for their on-screen personnel in a timely manner.
And Barack Obama’s recent usage has drawn out that most excellent crowd of so-called mainstream media folks–those whose duty is to repeat, repeat, repeat the party line– who are willing to take a convention of language as a measure of soul and once again display the depths of their own hypocrisy. 
Well, the topic has an appeal, surely, to a certain measurable demographic that spends a great deal of its time meditating over sins, particularly the sins of others; a crowd who’d like to impress a set of prescriptions and proscriptions on the rest of humanity to keep them out of trouble and damnation–the do-gooders that Henry David Thoreau said would send him running blindly into the night. And the repeater circuit needs that crowd to pay attention. It’s a ratings thing.
The usage in question, just like sin, is distributed very widely. NPR this afternoon gave a minute and a half to running clips of politicos of the past using it. Including, of course, John McCain. There’s enough examples of his usages in glorious living, grainy Flash-format on the Web by now to make it common knowledge, but in case you haven’t seen one, here’s an example.
I took Obama’s remarks to be a clever use of Sarah Palin’s own words in pointing out that the McCain campaign has very little to say on actual issues, so they must take hypercritical issue with some action of the other side in order to have something about which to rattle on. So here they come, this time–surprisingly?–as the Politcal Correctness Police (PCP), whining, no, squealing, that Obama’s remarks might have been about Ms. Palin! He’s calling her a pig! How demeaning! To pigs and unattractive, loose living women! Not that Sarah Palin is either unattractive or loose living! It’s just that unattractive, loose living women, women who’ve taken to hanging out in bars, bars which magically improved their appearance at closing time according to the Nashville singers, these poor, lonely women that are called up by everyone as the object of the metaphor provide such an excellent contrast to the Clean and Expressive Sarah Palin! Of course, she may not be that clever. Wasn’t that part of the sly inference of her original usage?! Haven’t you noticed she has a sly, foxy smile in the original sense of resembling an actual fox?! I’m telling you!! Go for the Visual! Go for the Visual! It’s important!
Okay, she demeaned pit bulls and/or hockey mom’s formerly known as soccer moms. But the slyness was thoughtless towards those poor creatures who were among the original targets of the slur.
Who’s looking out for them? Bill O’Reilley?!
Now, come on. Be honest. Aren’t the Republicans just jealous because they didn’t think of it first? Oh. Wait. They did. Ms. Palin’s speech! I guess lipstick doesn’t demean pit bulls. Or hockey mom’s either. I challenge you to find a hockey mom without lipstick all. Of course, her remark was clever because it made a turn on that not-to-be-mentioned connection to pigs, without knowledge of which, of course, her remark is still comic, but way down on impact. Old jokes sneaked up upon are funny.
You see, this is a very sophisticated crowd. They may not know much about economics, as John McCain said several times before he recently unveiled his secret PhD on the topic, but they all have the carefully honed listening skills of the cocktail/fund-raising circuit crowd. You can’t fool them. It’s good comedy, too. You could build a Seinfeld segment around this flap.
So. Take it as insult or take it as comedy. I prefer comedy, of course. Oh, what a wonderful world it must be, you know.
But the poor Democrats, once again, seem to have not done their homework. They’ve forgotten or never read their George Orwell, a man much concerned with politicians’ usages, who wisely reminds us that he or she who controls the language of the debate controls the debate. And since debate is the chosen tool for revolution in this country, then the language controller controlling the debate controls the country. This is also Basic Karl Rove. And Basic Machiavelli and basic pick-classical-rhetorician-of-your-choice. Mrs. Juanita Rucker certainly covered the point in the speech class at Walter P. Chrysler High School.
Barack Obama has effectively turned aside previous attacks by pointing out that the little ruckus over nothing is really just another indicator that the Republicans this time are empty suits* with nothing of their own to talk about except “We’re gonna do George Bush, but we’re going to do him better!” Obama’s done the pointing out with a fair amount of style and flair so far, but I suppose the constant need to slap down repeated stupidities might be wearing.
And, if its not a little ruckus, then its a beautiful lesson along the road to perfecting the language; words do have meaning, as Rush has often said. And we all use them.
UPDATE: Obama responds.
7 responses so far ↓
1 Jack king // Sep 11, 2008 at 12:33 pm
The first time since he became a candidate for president that Obama is known to have used the “lipstick on a pig” metaphor was when he said that General Petraeus’ task in Iraq was “to figure out how to put lipstick on a pig”.
It turns out that Petraeus figured well because the pig is not so ugly now.
The first time McCain is known to have used the metaphor was in reference to Hilary’s cosmetic changes to her universal health care plan.
The second time Obama used it was in reference to McCain’s new “change” mantra. Obama had been insisting that a McCain administration would not be a change, but “more of the same.” As Obama made the comment, his audience roared with delight — listen to the tape –because even before he had finished the sentence they made the connection between “lipstick on a pig” and Palin’s line that the only difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull is lipstick. The audience wanted Obama to get down and dirty and be more like a pit bull and less like a parrot for the Democratic party. Although I’m not an Obama fan, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. I think he’s too politically adept to purposely aim that remark at a woman, and the real pit bulls on the Republican side were too adept not to capitalize on his gaffe.
2 Jack king // Sep 11, 2008 at 1:38 pm
And speaking of gaffes, Michael Moore said that the arrival of a category 3 hurricane during the Republican convention was “proof there really is a god.” One commentator wondered if Michael Moore’s belly is proof there reallyus a buddha.
3 GeneNovo // Sep 11, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Stan, You CAN write. Very very good, sharp. While friends and foes and inbetweeners might not believe me, I am NOT listening to and viewing anything about the election; I do read, a little, about the election.
I hope the Obama message that there are NO easy answers for the US at home and abroad prevails, rather than the simplistic McCain-Palin bromides …. And, Obama stands for the US growing up - a little - while McCain-Palin want to freeze the nation in a balnd loaf of white bread ….
Again Stan; you’re sharp; submit the piece as a letter to the editor - if you choose ….
4 Jack king // Sep 11, 2008 at 3:01 pm
I agree with Gene: Stan can write. I’ve enjoyed listening to him recite his poetry at the San Benito writer’ s forum since I first started attending about four years ago. I never flip my calendar to the next page without feeling a surge of pleasant anticipation for that first-Tuesday-of-the-month meeting at the cultural arts center. And Gene himself can write too. His slice-of-life pieces sparkle with true-to-life imagery and a subtle undercurrent of moral outrage that the struggling poor in our society are not being properly respected or served. And Gene is the founder of our forum, so I am especially indebted to him for that. He founded a wonderful institution, and if there are readers of this website who haven’t attended one of those forums, they don’t know what they’re missing.
But even friends can sometimes disagree, and in the matter of November election, that is the case. Stan and Gene are supporters of Obama while I support McCain.
What Stan has created here with his “lipstick” piece is and opportunity for all who come to this site to express their own views, and I think it will help us all to come to a clearer view of whom we want in the White House come January. Stan, Gene, and I want to hear from you, and I’m sure Stan will insure that the discussion does not turn into a shouting match, but remains civil and enlightening.
5 Stan // Sep 12, 2008 at 12:44 am
Paul Krugman in the New York Times today goes even farther and speaks more plainly than I did here. He just flat out calls the recent rash of McCain ads lies and then stacks up the evidence.
It’s here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/opinion/12krugman.html
The standard attack will be 1) Krugman is a vile, liberal creature of the NY Times, a demonstrably repeater organization for the liberal establishment –in other words, to borrow GWBush’s favorite phrase, it will be an ad hominem attack supported by guilt by association. 2) A listing of shades of truth and falsity out of the Obama camp 3) blithe reassertion throughout the repeater organization of the lies.
At no point will McCain’s folks address the actual facts.
To me, this has grave implications for how John McCain looks at the rest of us and how he will rule as a consequence of that view.
How can one support him through this?
6 Jack king // Sep 12, 2008 at 10:29 am
I read Krugman’s piece, ‘Blizzard of Lies’, and found not a stack of evidence nor a blizzard of lies, but a series of incomplete truths, carefully chosen to reflect Krugman’s standard biased view (Not that I’m opposed to bias; I confess to it myself, but I’m better at defending it).
Krugman points out three (hardly a blizzard) so-called lies: Palin lied when she said “Thanks but no thanks” when Congress wanted to buy her a bridge to nowhere, The Republicans lied when they said Obama wanted sex education in kindergarten, and they lied again when they said Obama called Palin a pig.
The fact is that she took the money which was originally intended for a bridge to an island with a population of 50 (the island already had a ferry) and spent it more efficiently on roads and bridges that were more intensively used. So when she said, “Thanks, but no thanks” when Congress wanted to buy her a bridge, she was telling the truth. It was Congress who gave her the money and allowed her to use it for other purposes, and she did just that, and she did it wisely and efficiently.
After calling the claim that Obama wanted sex education in kindergarten a lie, Krugman fails to provide any evidence whatsoever that it is a lie. Instead, tries to justify that expenditure.
And so far as the Rupublican ads saying that Obama called Palin a pig, Krugman again fails to back that up with any evidence. The fact is that the ads don’t say that, although many people on both sides of the campaign think that is what Obama implied.
Krugman is clearly grasping at straws. Anyone who calls someone a liar and fails so miserably in his attempt to back it up shouldn’t have a desk at the New York Times.
7 Stan // Sep 12, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Well, Jack, thanks for not taking the standard attack. I still hold that the responses from the media repeater machine on Krugman’s column, although he usually doesn’t get direct attention and has been marginalized, pigeonholed as “liberal,” pronounced with a sneer.
Nevertheless, I appreciate you close reading and hope you sent your notes to Krugman, too.
And I’ll have to admit that he’s swept up in the hyperbolic language that’s taken over political discourse in the last twenty years. “Flurry” would probably be more apt than “blizzard.”
But as far as evidence of the lies and stretchers perpetrated by the McCain campaign and Ms. Palin in presenting herself, I think he’s dead on. He does rely too much, perhaps, on the Internet as “general knowledge,” but, in his defense on that point, he only gets space for 250 words. Not much. You spent nearly that much, I’d guess, demonstrating how poorly he’d supported his case.
Nevertheless, the point that the lies are working stands. Rather than addressing issues, and there’s plenty that need to be debated, here we are debating Klugman. And lipstick and bridges to nowhere in particular.
You must log in to post a comment.