Private lives in political poses: Claire Messud on the tawdry antics laid bare in the 'public interest'

Claire Messud
Thursday 02 June 1994 23:02
Comments

SO PATTI DAVIS, the 42-year- old daughter of Ronald and Nancy Reagan, has bared all for Playboy. This physical unveiling is, of course, but a modest sequel to her autobiography, Family Secrets, in which the Reagans were (figuratively) stripped for public view and revealed as 'dysfunctional parents', inhumanly distant and drug-addicted respectively.

Since the 1992 autobiography - which itself followed on the heels of three thinly-veiled autobiographical novels about the horrors of growing up in the Reagan household - Ms Davis has continued to conduct her therapy in public. In February she visited Britain on a lecture tour to discuss the link between the poor parenting she received and the Reagans' treatment of the United States at large - to stress, in short, the unshakeable connection between the personal and the political.

Part of her message was that she had, at last, forgiven her parents: she no longer saw Nancy as 'abusive', but rather as 'frightened'; Ronald was 'emotionally shy' rather than selfish. Patti was cured, a woman liberated from her brutal upbringing. One wishes that her appearance in Playboy (accompanied by her own erotic fiction about John Wayne Bobbitt's severed penis) seemed like the act of a liberated individual.

Sadly, it gives the opposite impression: the world is interested in her antics only in so far as they relate to her parents and their moral rigidity. Her nudity, like her personality, has no intrinsic public value.

Ms Davis has claimed that her revelations about her family background are in the public interest. Yet this link, this insistence that the personal is political, seems an unfortunate and all too familiar degradation of one of feminism's central tenets. Bowdlerised, popularised, misconstrued, the slogan has come to imply that any relative - or lover - of a public person has, or should have, a public platform and a public significance.

In politics, attention to the personal, to psychological backgrounds and affective ties, increasingly takes precedence over the realm of issues, policies and public debate. And the 'personal' takes the form of public condemnation, often by women, of male politicians who have done badly by them in private.

Feminism has not put significantly more women in politics, but has rather spawned relatives and lovers who cling, whiningly, to the coat-tails of political men.

Patti Davis is not alone: with spectacular and cynical tawdriness, the Harkess family and Mrs Clark camp it up in the tabloids - as though, without Alan Clark, any of them would be of sufficient interest to merit a mention.

Making the personal public is, of course, much in vogue among television celebrities and the families of serial killers. Roseanne Arnold's miserable childhood got an airing in April, with the publication of her autobiography, as did Lionel Dahmer's experience of being father to serial-killer Jeffrey. Mikal Gilmore's book about the trials of being Gary's brother is to be published next month.

Is it churlish, or naive, to wish for different standards in the political sphere? Is it excessive to seek gravitas, that attribute traditionally deemed masculine, from men and women both?

When Jackie Kennedy Onassis died last month, the world mourned the loss of a heroine. What made her seem heroic, one tribute pointed out, was that 'somehow she managed to be genteel, gracious, dignified, even as she was shrewd and fierce.' Exceedingly reticent, she maintained an impressive public composure. Even though her first husband was famously adulterous, she exuded gravitas, and, at all times, dignity - a dignity that extends beyond the grave, as she has willed that her papers should remain private. It may have been an old-fashioned stance, but it was at least an admirable one.

She must have wondered about the dignity of the politicians' relatives (and mistresses) who succeeded her in American politics. In Patti Davis's lingo, she must have questioned their self-esteem: because these people seem, troublingly, to have none. It seems a sad feminising of politics when a woman is not President but is pictured naked and passive in a magazine because she is related to one.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

By clicking ‘Create my account’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in