I don't usually watch "Dancing with the Stars." But I do take an interest in culture and politics, and I read Daily Kos, so I had the chance to read a recently rec-listed diary about why it would be good if Bristol won. The diary's point is summarized as follows:
I think that for people who believe in merit and talent -- and I'd like to believe that that's the majority of the country -- this will be a sort of a wake-up call. We'll be employing this metaphor -- "it's like when Bristol Palin won on Dancing With the Stars even though she was the least talented" -- repeatedly in the years to come. But we won't do that because we're trying to politicize the world. We'll do it because the world already is politicized
I would like to offer a different perspective.
First of all though, there are some caveats. The diary points out that Bristol's vote on "Dancing with the Stars" has been politicized, which is resulting in the inflation of her vote. This was the segment highlighted on Fox News, which excerpted from the diary:
Sarah Palin fans keep voting her in not because of her greater talent but as a tribute to her grifter Mom.
This is true and if anyone didn't know it, badly needed pointing out.
Where I disagree with is the diarist's conclusion that if Bristol won, it would be a good because "I think that for people who believe in merit and talent -- and I'd like to believe that that's the majority of the country -- this will be a sort of a wake-up call."
This is too optimistic.
The issue is not that the people voting for her don't believe in merit and talent. In reality, we all do this to some extent-- that is, use characteristics that should have no bearing on a decision that results in reward or power to influence the decision. Studies show that taller, more attractive people tend to be more successful, for example.
So Bristol-winning would send a message that, "merely by being associated with a woman like Sarah Palin, you can win Dancing with the Stars." (The operative trait here is extreme conservative politics - it was the same with Christine O'Donnell) That this is unfair is beside the point. After all, we don't want talent and skill for it's own sake. What we want is recognition. That Bristol is getting recognition without actually having the goods is even more disturbing. It's like being paid the big bucks without actually doing the job (well). The more talentless and undeserving you are, the bigger the message.
If a woman that talentless and unfit and nonetheless win Dancing with the Stars just by taking on (or being closely associated with) the outer trappings of extreme conservatism, maybe I should...
In other words, conservatives are elevating being associated with Palin, to the functional equivalent of characteristics like beauty and height-- they give you a leg up for no 'effort'. And in doing so, they change the culture to 'reward' a certain type of 'good' woman, and 'punish' a certain type of 'bad woman.
This is no different from what cultural conservatism has done for centuries, only with new tools.
Because they disregard merit, these anxieties can do a lot of damage to our country and to women in particular... Jennifer Grey and Brandy aren't the only "collateral damage." They're symbolic of something much broader going on.
Until we see that, we will never understand the Palin phenomenon.