July 9, 2009Bullcrap of the DayBullcrap of the Day would be an easy feature to fill. The name does homage to South Park, avoids trademark infringement with Penn & Teller, and seems a bit more family friendly. But I have to call it on Steve Chapman today. Chapman says, and Insty links, that It's hard to exaggerate how valuable a pleasing appearance can be. Numerous studies show that people rated good-looking make more money than those who are not so easy on the eyes. In the modern media age, the same effect holds in politics. I'll not quibble that it is an advantage to be attractive, it has been great for me. But I'll argue with everything else in the excerpt, and I did not pick it for fiskworthiness. Back to front: Senator Phil Gramm did not lose over looks. He lost because he tells the truth. He led the polls in New Hampshire and had the most money when he told a religious convention "I'm not running for National Pastor -- I'm running to be President." I don't think any Reason authors forget this history -- but it didn't fit his thesis. Gov. Mitt Romney was a Republican Governor of one of the five bluest states in the country. He had executive cred from the Salt Lake Olympics and let's see, was there something else? Oh, yeah -- he had a bazillion dollars to float his own campaign and avoid the rules that the Handsome lad that won the nomination had enacted. Senator Edwards is not my cup of tea, but he is a credible candidate beyond the expressive locks. He is Southern, which got him the 2004 VP nod, and he had 2004 experience in 2008. He is a skilled if oleaginous orator and represents the populist southern liberal tradition of guys who want to be Atticus Finch. Back to his thesis, I would suggest that an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court and a Vice President are different roles (Earl Warren missed his Veep shot and rose to Chief Justice, but this is a different world.) My appreciation for Governor Palin is NOT physical. Blog Brother ac posted a photo from her interview in Running Magazine and I thought "oh, she is cute." If I loved her, it was because she was the only one of the four candidates in the General (Obanma,Biden,McCain,Palin) that discussed or displayed a whiff of belief in limited government. In a good year, I'd expect the folks at Reason to notice this. Or, like David Harsanyi, to notice that she had vetoed a ban on benefits for same-sex partners of State workers because it was proscribed by the Alaska Constitution. Chapman is dead wrong on all his examples. Sure it helps to be pretty (again, I did not rise to my blogging prominence based on SAT scores) but it does not work in this application. |
Superficial pricks like Letterman and *insert name of ass who replaced Leno here* still think of women as either beautiful OR smart. Is this Chapman fellow in that camp as well?
And as jk also knows, good looks always make you less popular with the vain amongst your peers, hence the cold shoulder Palin gets from other GOP hopefuls (and jk gets from lead singers of hair metal bands.)
Posted by: johngalt at July 9, 2009 11:32 PMShe was my gal before I ever saw the first image: the stories of her rise, over the bones (oohh, what a satisfying crunch they made!) of Alaska's cupidinous class and I was in Luuuve.
She's since proven to be complex enough to warrant more than the space I can take right now.
I think JG nailed Chapman. I find Reason very hit'n miss... one of the few that's better OdT than OnLine.
Posted by: nanobrewer at July 12, 2009 9:40 PM | What do you think? [2]