Scandals and gossip

There is something quite strange for someone bored by details of the privacy of others, to see the media, starting with those "serious", enjoyed with things, which are nothing else than gossip. What is surprising is the implacable march of something incredibly reactionary and normalizer.

It's not only that we know that this one (John Edwards) has cheated on his wife with this one, nor even that we know when and how... It's not only that we know that the daughter of this other one (Sarah Palin) is pregnant before to be married or that her husband was arrested more than 20 years ago for driving under the influence of alcohol... It's not only that there are people to peel biographies, investigate, reveal or create "scandals", and others to buy them, "friends" to be paid for their secrets and bargain their betrayal... in short, a whole system implying terrible and sordid things... I assume it could be funny. The point is mostly what it reveals about what is asked to a candidate for the presidency of the USA, which has absolutely nothing to do with the exercise of his functions: to fulfill archaic moral values.

Then they will say that what sets to end the career of John Edwards, is not his affair, but the fact that he has lied. Certainly. The subtlety of reasoning is amusing, which does not see that if he had lied about wether putting socks on or not, his career would continue its running. Or they will say that the pranks of Sarah Palin's family are an issue because of what they reveal the lack of seriousness of the McCain advisors, who has not enough study her record before choosing her as running mate, disregarding the fact that these pranks are none of our buisness.

It is indeed the fact that candidates are expected about their moral values, which astonishes me. It is indeed the fact that they are not only men or women brought to manage records, but entire families engaged to reassure on the probity of a candidate. It is this curious confusion which questions not only the program, but also the values of a man, his morals and his faith.

Who is candidate in this election? What does he stand for? Before who? Those are the questions inevitably arose by Michelle Obama's speech at the DNC, in which she gave so many details, going as far as telling how her husband ask her out, to give an image of good and perfect straight white bourgeois and reassure America.

Sometimes, people are struggling to convince they fulfill the perfect son-husband-father model. Sometimes one detail of their lives betrays their inability to be entirely submited to such values. And this is certainly the least they can do. But the fact that these values and expectations are not questioned, this has to be surprising and inhuman.

No comments: