A note of aggressive petulance
Speaking of styles of masculinity and who does it better and what it all means – Alexandra Schwartz argues that Kavanaugh’s bizarre mix of shouting and sobbing is the new hip conservative thing.
Kavanaugh choked up and sobbed as he described his father’s detailed calendars, which apparently inspired his own calendar-keeping practice; he seemed unable to gain control over himself, gasping and taking frequent sips of water. The initial impression was of naked emotional vulnerability, but Kavanaugh was setting a tone. Embedded in the histrionics were the unmistakable notes of fury and bullying. Kavanaugh shouted over Dianne Feinstein to complain about the “outrage” of not being allowed to testify earlier; when asked about his drinking, by Sheldon Whitehouse, he replied, “I like beer. You like beer? What do you like to drink, Senator?” with a note of aggressive petulance that is hard to square with his preferred self-image of judicious impartiality and pious Sunday churchgoing. Lindsey Graham eagerly took up the angry-man mantle, using his allotted five minutes of questioning to furiously shout at his Democratic colleagues.
One issue here is…it might work, but if it does it will work at the cost of making the Supreme Court itself a less respected institution. Maybe that doesn’t matter in the short term, given the uncheckable nature of its power, but bringing the law and authority into disrepute doesn’t seem like a very conservative value to me.
What we are seeing is a model of American conservative masculinity that has become popular in the past few years, one that is directly tied to the loutish, aggressive frat-boy persona that Kavanaugh is purportedly seeking to dissociate himself from. Gone are the days of a terse John Wayne-style stoicism. Now we have Trump, ranting and raving at his rallies; we have Alex Jones, whose habit of screaming and floridly weeping as he spouts his conspiracy theories is a key part of his appeal to his audience.
Well, okay, that’s two, but is it really a widespread thing?
John Boehner was known to let the tears flow on occasion. So that’s three?
I do not think the weepy/shouty conservative is a widespread thing. Trump doesn’t even really fit. He’s not weepy.
Initially I found the comparison of Kavanaugh to Alex Jones intriguing, but I think it fails once you look past the surface similarity. It’s a full-time shtick for Jones, but for Kavanaugh it was a one-time instance of someone reacting (or pretending to react) to what they believe (or are pretending to believe) are outrageous, false accusations.
Shouty by itself is hardly new.
The issue I’m curious about isn’t so much whether it’s new or not as whether and how it makes sense as a conservative style, especially in a nominee to the Supreme Court arguing that he should be confirmed.
Preachers: Christians choked with tears and emotions in front of an audience, overcome with gratitude towards God and Jesus Christ — who then spin on a dime with self-righteous fury and shaken fists aimed towards sinners and an ungodly world. That’s a familiar scenario for religious conservatives. It seems to me that once again, religion is seeping into politics.
I’m not buying the “hipness”, but it’s definitely the defining posture of conservative masculinity. Granted, my evidence is anecdotal: I can’t think of a guy I’ve run into who espoused conservative views of any sort (and especially regarding gender roles, which seems to be the core of what conservatism even stands for these days) who DIDN’t act this way in an altercation or when stressed/disappointed in any way.
The “John Wayne-style stoicism” may be the gold standard of the performance of masculinity, but it’s not exactly easy to pull off, especially when you are just playing pretend. For one, actually BEING stoic, requires a level of self-control, both emotional and behavioral, beyond what an average person can readily manage. Neither is stoicism, or self control, readily compatible with the attitude of absolute entitlement, which is another defining feature of conservative masculinity. Stoicism requires not just an attenuation of emotion and its display in general, but specifically the downlplaying of any pain and anger reactions to hardship: it is difficult to do this on a single occasion, and exponentially more difficult to do with any consistency. Like many things, it does get easier with practice, but practice requires encountering and overcoming many real hardships — and given the sheer volume of the anger and whining inspired by obviously imaginary hardships (sometimes comically so) coming from conservative men as a group, it seems opportunities to practice stoicism are in really short supply for them.
So what we are really witnessing here is a whole lot of amateur actors trying their best to impersonate their favorite western/cop show/video game/anime “badass male” character, and failing miserably whenever the going gets tough.
*applause*
Anna, I think you’re spot on. The thing is, I don’t think it’s ever been “John Wayne stoicism” that was being presented by conservatives, at least not in my lifetime. I think they let John Wayne define masculinity for them, and then they put on the mantle, without actually doing it in practice. They claimed it, and for some reason people have come to believe it, just like they believe that women talk more than men.
As Earl Long said, “If you get the reputation for getting up early, you can sleep until noon”.
It’s all smoke and mirrors, and always has been.
Hitler was given to this kind of histrionics.