Give any friend a story

As a subscriber, you have 10 gifts to send every month. Anyone can read what you share.

I have always believed that part of education—especially higher education—is learning to ask better questions on complex topics, knowing that you may not have the right answers. At my graduate seminars, one of my favorite ways to motivate students to go deeper is to ask this question: If we don’t admit that something is racism, sexism, or classism, what else can we say ?

Society is rooted in power imbalance and inequality. Of course, there are gender differences and discrimination; of course, there are racial hierarchy and racial order. But if we put it aside, what can we say about a text, a person, and a moment?

I was thinking about this when reading Kyrsten Sinema's "Rare Interview" on Politico this week. In the interview, she weighed her writing about her clothes, including the three of us showing her clothes as a form of political speech. Part of the discussion:

"This is very inappropriate. I wear what I want because I like it. This is not a news report, and it has nothing to do with anyone," Sinema said. "It doesn't help (reporting) to be positive or negative. It also means that somehow women are dressing for others."

The idea of ​​women dressing only for themselves is self-evident in modern feminism, and we can raise objections or limit it. But now let us put it aside and stipulate that she is right, generally speaking.

She is still a politician. Part of the job of a politician is to attract people's attention and manage their image. As I said, since speech and style are part of the politician’s toolkit, our question is whether we are willing to allow this political exchange to be uncensored and criticized.

Here, it is important to consider context when setting the boundaries of appropriate discourse. The details of the Democratic Party’s Social Expenditure Act “rebuild better” are constantly changing. But it has funds to increase Pell grants, affordable childcare, paid family leave and expand health care coverage. It contains policies to slow climate change and mitigate its impact. It is no exaggeration to say that life is closely related to the fate of the bill.

The cinema puts itself at the center of this political drama. Therefore, how she mobilizes her strength is very important. How she manages her attention is also important.

The cinema largely let her performance speak for her. She avoids interviews and is very cautious about what she hopes to get from these negotiations. As Politico wrote, “In terms of policy, the first senator remained almost completely silent during the emergency negotiations to complete the Biden agenda.”

This silence opened the curtain between a powerful political actor and the public. The public has a lot to do. This also means that it is very fair to discuss and criticize the political rhetoric in her performance, including her dress. Politicians should not be allowed to engage in unilateral dialogue with the American public. One-way political communication is a very slippery slope to a closed political process—a process that replaces real responsibility with a seemingly transparent process, simply because we can see moving images on the screen.

We can talk back. we should.

Speaking of replies, many of you wrote to say that we should pay attention to important things. Two reports this month caught my attention. I think they pointed out an important trend.

First, Politico reported that Sinema has received donations from the multi-level marketing industry:

The political action committee related to Alticor, the parent company of health, home and beauty company Amway, donated $2,500 to the Arizona Democrats in late June. The same is true for Isagenix’s PAC, which is a sales company based in Arizona. Nutrition, health and personal products companies. Care products. Nu Skin, another personal care and beauty company, donated $2,500 that month, as did USANA Health Sciences, which sells similar products. In April, Richard Raymond Rogers, executive chairman of Mary Kay, a Texas-based cosmetics company, donated $2,500 to the film company. Herbalife also sells nutritional supplements and donated US$2,500 in July. All of these are affiliated with the Direct Selling Association, a trade organization that promotes multi-level marketing.

These are not huge sums of money, but they are noticeable for several reasons. As Politico pointed out, it is relatively rare for some of these companies to fully participate in national politics. In addition, the theater has a friendly relationship with the Direct Selling Association. The Direct Selling Association represents 130 multi-level marketing companies including Amway and Herbalife.

Considering her party’s long-term alliance with labor unions and labor, this alliance is unusual for Democratic senators. In a multi-level marketing structure, independent contractors who sell products receive commissions from their own product sales, but they can also earn income based on the sales or purchases of sellers they recruit. The cinema is one of only three Democratic senators who did not co-sponsor the PRO bill, which would allow “independent contractors” to join unions and make it more difficult for companies to classify workers as independent contractors.

Second, it is reported that Dr. Mehmet Oz is considering running for the Senate of Pennsylvania to fill the seat vacated by Pat Toomey. Through a very complicated process of media culture, which is only possible in American culture obsessed with celebrities, Dr. Oz has become one of the most conspicuous and wealthiest spokespersons of many scientifically questionable vitamins, herbs, and miracle treatments. one.

These news are reminiscent of the way these types of businesses—located on illegal borders and less respected—have become mainstream in the United States. Donald Trump may be the best example of this phenomenon. In addition to this, he happened to be the founder and eponymous institution of one of the most blatantly fraudulent for-profit school institutions I have ever seen: Trump University, which the National Review calls a "legal" scam.

The election of Donald Trump seems to have opened the door to us and no longer even pretends to be these scams, the legitimate parts of our political and economic system, and even the way to electricity.

Whenever I talk about multi-level marketing, people usually make two suggestions that need to be checked. One is a podcast called "The Dream" by Jane Marie. The other is a recent documentary about LuLaRoe selling tights. Both of these stories tell the mechanics of multi-level marketers, how they work and why they work.

The holidays are coming soon, and I want to spend some time listening to "dreams" on your behalf when you travel by car. I want to watch LuLaRoe's documentary. I have questions about why fraud has become a mainstream legal part of the country’s politics and its perception of culture. We will talk about this soon. I will celebrate Thanksgiving next week. See you next week.

Tressie McMillan Cottom (@tressiemcphd) is an associate professor in the School of Information and Library Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is the author of "Thick: And Other Essays" and the 2020 MacArthur Fellow.