I’m sorry, but that meme was just too funny to ignore, ethics or not. I’d like to think even Fetterman would appreciate it.
But that’s it for me. Mocking a political figure based on his or her appearance is the ultimate ad hominem attack, and there’s no excuse for it. The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative news source that has made useful contributions to public awareness when the mainstream media is in the process of burying a story that hurts its mission, ran a story yesterday headlined,
“John Fetterman Wears Suit to Capitol, Looks Terrible….like a funeral home director on trial for desecrating a corpse (multiple counts)“
I wonder: when did the Free Beacon start hiring 14-year-olds on its staff? No doubt about it, Fetterman is hideous, but that has absolutely no relevance to his competence, character, or fitness to be a U.S. Senator. Given the degree of “lookism” at work in political success, his rise is even impressive: a face and form like his is a major handicap to overcome. The majority of U.S. Senators, at least the white males, have a GQ cookie-cutter look. This guy is typical; can you identify him?
He probably went though high school as Class President and prom king, and loved getting his picture taken. Men who look like him have an instant advantage virtually from infancy. It’s a reasonable assumption that John Fetterman received no such boost from photogenic features. You would think, would you not, that after all these years of progressives taking cheap shots at Donald Trump for his hair, his skin hue and his weight, and similar appearance-based attack on Rush Limbaugh for decades, conservatives would have rejected this tactic as the gutter-level incivility that it is. And you would be wrong.
If you want a scary member of Congress, I give you the leader of the Republican Radicals post-Civil War, Thaddeus Stevens:
That face has lived in my nightmares ever since I first saw it in the fifth grade. Tommy Lee Jones played Stevens in “Lincoln,” the only time in his career that Jones was too good looking for a role.
Was Abraham Lincoln easier on the eyes than Fetterman?
I don’t know; we’re used to Abe. He was certainly ridiculed for his looks throughout his life. LBJ was hardly a looker either…
Of course Democrats preferred to have Kennedy as their nominee for POTUS in 1960 rather than the more substantive, accomplished Senator from Texas.
Fetterman’s cognitive problems are fair game for criticism and mockery, because they are relevant to his ability to fulfill his duties as Senator. His looks, alarming as they are, ought to be off limits.
The Golden Rule governs in these matters..
21 thoughts on “OK, After This Ethics Alarms Officially Condemns Cheap Shots At Senator-Elect Fetterman’s Appearance…”
I think calling him Festerman would be a good nickname. 😀
I have no problem avoiding remarks regarding his looks. However, I do wonder whose cognitive capacity was more debilitated, his or those who voted him in.
His cognitive capacity was/is debilitating. Those voting for him, though, voted for the “D” next to his name. To them, the important thing was control of the Senate. Fetterman, by all counts, was an unimpressive mayor and Lt. Governor, with lots to criticize. An objective media would have reported on them but . . .
Due to the dishonesty of the media, we don’t know the level for sure. It is claimed by his camp that it is just auditory processing that is impaired. With a stroke, that may or may not be true. If he’s able still read and write along with thinking ability being clear, it is no more of an impediment that full deafness. We just don’t know because the media won’t be honest about their preferred candidate.
During one of his debates with Stephen Douglas, Douglas called Abraham Lincoln “two-faced”.
Lincoln replied, “Honestly, if I were two-faced, would I be showing you this one?”
Now I have to check with quote maven Tom Fuller to see if that’s a real quote…
The precise wording varied (no audio or video recorders in 1858, after all) but I found several sources for it when I researched the accuracy of the quote. Here’s one: https://www.americanheritage.com/if-i-had-another-face-do-you-think-id-wear-one
There’s an apocryphal story that Abraham Lincoln once refused to endorse somebody on the grounds that he didn’t like the man’s face. When challenged that nobody is responsible for his face, Lincoln replied that everybody over the age of forty was responsible for his face (shades of The Picture of Dorian Grey). This would necessarily hold of Lincoln himself, if true.
Question: in next week’s state elections here in Victoria, at least six out of the seven candidates where I live are Jewish (and I don’t know about the seventh). What ethical questions does this raise, for voters, for party selectors, and so on? I can see a few, but I’d like to canvass readers’ opinions on this.
I’m not sure the golden rule governs much of anything these days. There has been a Gatling gun of golden rule violations aimed at a particular subset of the population for decades. The ethics wall has been turned into Swiss cheese. People are devolving to a monkey see, monkey do mindset.
A propos of absolutely nothing, why is it that only Democrats get cool initials?
Witness, just to name a few:
Don’t forget FDR!
But Republicans get cool nicknames, like “Honest Abe,” “Tricky Dick,” “Silent Cal,” and “Shrub”…
LBJ….Spanish for oral sex…?
14 y/o author indeed…
You left out the fact that they also took a cheap shot at Fetterman’s wife’s appearance. That’s an equally repugnant avenue to take.
The conservative shots at Jill Biden’s outfits have been especially vicious.
You mean like the attacks on Melania’s outfits? Or the constant ass-kissing wrt Michelle’s outfits?
Now now. Tit for Tat isn’t ethical! Besides, criticizing Melania, who looks good in a sack, is just self-indicting. I’m tempted to say that celebrating Mrs. Obama as Jackie Kennedy redux was as well.
I think that Fetterman photo comparison meme could easily be added to this one…
I don’t condone the headline or any cruel, superficial barbs. Obviously Golden Rule ethics should apply, and no one should be ridiculed for things they have no control over, like skin color, gender, height, etc..
That said, I think the majority of people who are justifiably shocked and affronted by Fetterman’s election can’t make legitimate criticisms about his fitness (or lack thereof) for the Senate. Why? Because those criticisms have been reiterated ad nauseum, to no avail.
So, they’re going for the lowest common denominator, pathetically low hanging fruit, because it’s literally the only thing they have to laugh at right now.
Most reasonable, fair-minded Americans are crying and screaming on the inside. The Hope that all would not be lost was the only thing that fueled many of us leading up to the midterms.
And now here we are, one week later, wondering how the hell this country is going to survive the next two years.
That headline was a mean-spirited, cheap shot, one that most of our inner 14 year olds might make.
The Left continually tells us how mere words, especially when those words are uttered by someone on The Right, are “violence”. These words, no matter how nasty and unnecessary, can’t begin to do the kind of real damage that Fetterman & his ilk have done and will do now that they’re in power. And that depresses and frightens me far more than his appearance.
Something about Fetterman’s appearance has been tickling my memory, and I think I may have got it, now:
And speaking of aliens, some are opining that Gisele Fetterman is the first illegal alien Brazilian woman to be elected senator.
Fetterman is not good-looking. Neither am I, so we will be kind and leave a critique of his physiognomy out. Fetterman is cognitively impaired due to his cerebral vascular accident, Bad luck and we wish him well. However, the voters of PA ought not to have been so cognitively impaired, so they certainly are fair game to be the focus of our critique.