Why He-Man Politics Is All the Rage this Year

Politics and manliness have always been bound together in American politics in one form or another. Just last month in the Jan. 28 issue of the Washington Post George Will penned a column on “The Politics of Manliness” in which he argued that the Democrats recognize manliness as a subtext to the campaign.

What varies throughout the history of American politics is the explicitness with which someone's manhood is used to make political points of one form or another. Military service is the most common theme, though not a guarantee of success, from Washington to Jackson to Teddy Roosevelt and JFK. Political leadership is tied to military leadership, as the ability to lead men in battle is naturally associated with the ability to lead men in political struggle. Therefore it is not surprising that in the post-September 11 era, masculinity has become a common theme in political discourse, both implicitly and explicitly in many cases.

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the heroic actions of the firefighters and police who responded and lost their lives as a result were held up as examples of courage and bravery, a revival of traditional masculine associations with those two professions. The passengers who apparently fought the hijackers for control of the plane that crashed in western Pennsylvania were similarly lauded, as president Bush adopted “Let's roll” as a catch phrase for his war on terror.

The immediate reaction to the attacks spurred commentary from both sides of the political spectrum that attempted to claim manly stands against terrorism. Conservatives like Peggy Noonan hoped that the heroism of the firefighters would make for a more masculine, traditional culture with traditional heroes. Liberals pointed out that one of the passengers who fought with the hijackers and may have brought the one of the hijacked planes down in Pennsylvania was openly gay.

Bush's move away from what seemed to be a relatively uninspiring administration worried about stem cells to a warrior presidency taking on the terrorists showed this as well. While support for the war and Afghanistan was broad, many pointed out that the administration was not adequately funding “first responders,” the firefighters and police who would be called upon to deal with another attack, showing an early split in the approach taken by Democrats and Republicans. The war in Afghanistan had its own moments of bravery that lent itself to romantic manhood, particularly the special forces leading Northern alliance troops in a cavalry charge, an image that embodies both ancient chivalric manhood and the traditional American view of the cowboy.

The cowboy image in American political culture goes back to Teddy Roosevelt and the “Rough Rider” image he so carefully cultivated. His reasons for doing so were pragmatic, as masculinity was a key part of political life at the turn of the century and Roosevelt needed to shed his image of the effete eastern dandy. Therefore his writings on ranch life and his combat experience in Cuba were key parts of his political image. Modern presidents have followed parts of this pattern as well.

One reason is that it gives the politician the air of being one of the people, who can work with his hands outdoors in the fresh air, rather than being a privileged aristocrat. Therefore it is not surprising that Bush bought a ranch in Texas just before his presidential campaign. It does raise the question as to whether the current Bush presidency would have been possible if he had been governor of Connecticut, his home state, rather than his adopted state of Texas. Certainly it presents a different image, and the elder Bush was always sensitive to being called a “wimp” and was frequently portrayed as patrician and out of touch, even though he was a genuine war hero and successfully led the country in a victorious war.

Military service poses an interesting conundrum for historians looking at presidential politics. Many politicians use their war record as a credential, but it does not always work, as politicians from George McClellan to Bob Dole found out. George H.W. Bush could draw on his WWII service as a fighter pilot, but never seemed to find a sure footing on how to use it to his positive advantage, though Clinton 's Vietnam avoidance was used heavily against him in 1992. The question seems to be one of timing and political skill, as the 1992 race was the first after the Cold War, and national security was not an issue. The key strategy seems to be making a war record translate into the type of leadership the electorate wants. Essentially, a war record is no good if there is no apparent threat and the economy is the main concern.

As George Will noted recently, and others did somewhat earlier, masculinity may be a key part of this current campaign. The question is whether the candidates can combine the traditional male role of warrior and breadwinner, or stress one enough so that the other does not matter. Bush's State of the Union address indicates that national security will be a key part of his campaign. The Democratic candidates have taken pains to be strong on defense while promising more jobs. Military service has become a significant part of the story so far, as Kerry has emphasized his Vietnam experience as a part of his campaign. Obviously, Clark 's campaign is almost entirely based on his military record.

Peter Jennings brought up Bush's military service in a question to Clark by stating accusations of Bush's alleged desertion were “reckless and unsupported by the facts.” The Boston Globe had written an article in 2000 questioning details about Bush's National Guard service or lack thereof. That this may become a campaign issue is something to be speculated on, but what is clear is that Democrats have been rankled by what they see as Bush's use of the Sept. 11 attacks and the Iraq war to impugn their patriotism.

The case of the 2002 Georgia senate race in which Max Cleland, a Vietnam vet who lost three limbs in the conflict, was equated with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein in a commercial and lost the race seems to have struck a particular chord, especially with Kerry, who has brought Cleland to campaign rallies. The president's landing on the Abraham Lincoln has been the most famous act of political theater conducted by Bush so far, and has become a political touchstone for both sides. Conservatives praised it as the act of a courageous president welcoming the troops home, to the point of actually making a G.I. Joe-type action figure based on it. On the other side, it was seen as a reckless political act, as casualties in Iraq continued to mount. How Bush's striding in a flight suit on the deck of a carrier is finally perceived, either as symbolic of a strong president in wartime, or a nakedly political act by a phony who went to war on false pretences, may well determine the outcome of the campaign.