It's pretty universally acknowledged that image plays too big a part of modern politics. But what I find frustrating is that to most people, "image" in politics means excessive, unreal polish. It's a guy like John Edwards and his $400 haircut. But really, the most damaging manipulation of image by politicians is in those that don't seem like they have an image. Those that have carefully built up a facade resembling an average person.
However, I would criticize it on a couple of points. First, it does spend a surprising amount of time on Ronald Reagan. I'm not a fan of his, but with newer and clearer examples of the fake populist, all that Ronnie-targeting comes across as unresolved issues on the part of the writer. And secondly, when it comes to municipal politicians who get a pass from the media and public thanks to a folksy image, they have a great local example in Mississauga's Hazel McCallion. But unlike Ford, a large segment of the Star's readership still love her, so they don't have the courage to call her out.
The Toronto Star has a good article eviscerating this idea of the populist, everyman politician. It's a sort of advance post-mortem on Rob Ford's mayorality (I guess that would be a pre-mortem.)
No comments:
Post a Comment