“Sterner Stuff”

I have been following a discussion and debate regarding Ivanka Trump and the “Grabyourwallet” resistance movement. The main point of the movement is to use that neoliberal economic tool exploited so well by the wealthy elite against one of its privileged progeny. In addition, it involves a political statement artfully flipping the Trump misogynistic comment about his penchant for sexual assault by grabbing women by their genitals, into an act of economic defiance and resistance. Ivanka Trump enters the picture, not just because of her genealogy, but also because of her role as active prop for her father, and as apologist for his statements, policies and actions. Her hypocrisy, which is part and parcel of that ethical construct, also shines a spotlight upon her sales of goods manufactured abroad while claiming to advocate “America First.” Numerous retail outlets have dropped her lines, and active support for her commercial enterprise may have led to conduct approaching impeachable offenses by her father, the POTUS.

Within the debate, however, a significant opportunity for critical reflection surfaces. Ivanka is not alone among children of the wealthy becoming famous for being famous off the platform of inherited wealth rather than individual talent or merit. Ivanka if different, however, because she has taken that role into politics and national policy areas. In general, when the children of the wealthy seek to trade on that background to enter the political arena, they are obliged to quickly demonstrate competence to remain viable. We have seen positive examples in the Kennedy family, from JFK to the most recent careers of Joe and Caroline. While all are superficially attractive persons, each has built a record of substantive accomplishment and competence, as well as social justice orientation to support their standing. In contrast, George W. and Jeb Bush have proven far less competent, their mediocrity and failings have been exposed by their forays into politics. Jesse Jackson, Jr. inherited substantial political, not financial, capital from his father, and squandered that asset through venal corruption.

Turning back to Ivanka, there is a different model involved. The class of individuals would include Paris Hilton and the Kardashians. They have built a following based upon public exposure and somewhat cynical exploitation of the willingness of event planners to pay then simply to appear at their events and somehow lend status. They have shown no apparent talent, intellect or engagement with social issues; and that avoidance of substance may be part of their public appeal. Since they appear to stand for nothing, there is little to disagree about regarding them. They have perpetuated wealth by the sale of perfumes and women’s apparel and accessories, none of which appear to have been created by them. Instead, they are the products of design and labor of obscure minions who are likely to be less photogenic and who lack personal inherited fortunes. For contrast, compare Donatella Versace. She is by no means a photogenic attraction and has sustained and expanded the economic base left to her by her father through hard work and her own design talent in a very competitive arena of high fashion.

The core issue here, however, is that the Ivanka controversy invites us reflect upon how we, as a society, are willing to be distracted and to waste considerable resources on purely superficial things rather than look to substance. We as less likely to value things of sterner stuff, whether goods or people. How does a perfume formulated in a laboratory become more appealing because Kim or Khloe Kardashian puts their name on it? Keep in mind that the namesake likely could not give a clue as to the ingredients or formulation. How does a handbag or pair of shoes designed by some anonymous person and manufactured in Viet Nam or Mexico become more attractive and expensive to buy because it has the name Ivanka Trump on the label for retail purposes? The #Grabyourwallet movement has resulted in the same goods being sold off at a fraction of their listed prices and Ivanka’s organization still claims to be profitable. If that is true, it reinforces the point of a lack of substance and value in the merchandise.

When those of the “superficial” class seek to engage in or associate with political matters, all that is attached to them becomes open for scrutiny. The POTUS failed to understand this when he ranted in an early morning tweet that his daughter was being treated unfairly when a major retailer dropper her merchandise from their retail outlets. This attempted crossover should awaken the public to look more carefully at what it is “buying” in the way of consumer goods. There is nothing wrong with purchasing famous label goods at a premium cost if the materials, construction and design are superior. Paying that premium to someone who is not the originator simply because of a superficial public image is foolish.

In a similar vein, scrutiny of politicians has become quite lax and subject to very superficial rhetoric. A typical politician today takes the photo opportunity to make a speech pledging to make America great, or to speak for the forgotten white working class, but then goes to his or her office and supports measures that cut benefits to those same people and transfers wealth to an elite group at the expense of investment in public initiatives that would have helped make the lives of those people better.  This is a con game similar to “selling” the public false products without value that the superficial class uses. As the #Grabyourwallet movement has shown, a rising collective consciousness spread through social media platforms can shatter the veneer. In a similar way, a parallel movement of #Grabyourballot could give rise to a public awakening that might counter the momentum and corruption of Citizens United and the mass distraction by politicians without substance. If that were to occur, the public might just see a tidal change in the 2018 elections that would hold elected officials to critical review and examination of their substance, as compared to their being elected based upon superficial slogans and jingoistic rhetoric. The political façade then becomes less significant compared to the substance. To demand that our elected representatives exhibit some measure of integrity and substance, the public must show that it is of sterner stuff, and display the courage to look behind the curtain.