×
ONLY THE POOR... can run for the president of the United States on the platform of fighting poverty. That's the only conclusion I can reach from Marc Ambinder's blog post, which is on the ever-popular topic of John Edwards's $400 haircuts, but this time mixed with the question why Mitt Romney's $300 face paint doesn't raise as many eyebrows or power as many opinion columns:
Why doesn't John Edwards's hair equal Mitt Romney's face paint?The primary difference is definitional: The centerpiece of Edwards's campaign is his anti-poverty efforts; he presents himself as a dedicated messenger for the cause, and he likes expensive haircuts, bought a gimungous house, etc. etc. His credibility as a messenger comes into question when he spends money ostentatiously. (The haircut was inadvertently billed to the campaign, a spokesman later said).This has something to do with that frightening word: "authenticity." Edwards can't be authentically for the poor if he lives in a gigantic house and has expensive haircuts, even if there was a time when he really was poor. He should own nothing but his robes and a rice bowl to pass that test of authenticity. On the other hand, because Mitt Romney has no plans to work for the poor his consumption patterns don't provoke much interest. What is hidden in this debate is the fact that a poor person has no chance to run for the president of the United States. If only the poor can fight for the poor, well, the poor are doomed.
--J. Goodrich
