by
Jack Lessenberry, a longtime political commentator who leads the journalism faculty at Wayne State University, provokes pushback by saying a female politician benefits significantly from her beauty.
He did so during a Michigan Radio interview with Gretchen Whitmer, a former Democratic state senator running for governor. In a follow-up commentary on the network Wednesday, he notes: "The thrust of my essay was that Whitmer may be the most qualified candidate because she has experience in Michigan government."
Gretchen Whitmer hasn't said publicly whether appearance references seem sexist.
(Facebook photo)
The writer also casts his "most attractive" reference as accurate and legitimate:
I said that “Whitmer is a trim woman who was usually ranked as Michigan’s most attractive legislator by bored reporters who like to make lists” of such things. . . .
Well, this provoked criticism from people who said that this was sexist, and that discussing a woman’s looks was totally inappropriate. But I disagree, and this is why.
Were Whitmer a biochemist, or a candidate to be president of the University of Michigan, what she looked like indeed would be totally irrelevant. But politics is something else again.
The 45-year-old candidate hasn't said publicly whether appearance references are sexist or inapt.
In his self-defense, headlined "Do looks matter in politics?," the 65-year-old Lessenberry reaches back more than half a century:
Everyone who has studied the famous 1960 presidential campaign between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon knows that Kennedy’s matinee idol looks were a major factor. . . . When you run for a major office, looks are often a factor. . . .
Judging women based on their appearance is dead wrong. But to pretend looks don’t matter in campaigns is faux political correctness, something I am not willing to do.
The former Detroit News reporter and editor, who now also writes Metro Times columns, addresses a related critique of his June 1 broadcast from the Mackinac Policy Conference:
Marissa Perry, a law student at the University of Michigan, had a different and more legitimate criticism. She thought it was unfair of me to ask why Whitmer would want to be governor, given that she "has two teenage daughters, a fairly new husband and is an accomplished lawyer." Perry said I wouldn’t have done that if her name were George.
Fair enough. But what I am really guilty of is inadequate explanation.
Three years ago, I asked Whitmer why she didn’t run for governor or attorney general. I thought she would have been a much stronger candidate than the people the Democrats did nominate, who both lost. Whitmer then told me she felt she needed to spend time with her daughters. I respected that; if you make a serious run for governor, it means two years of not seeing your family very much. Her kids were 11 and 9 then, and are 15 and 13 now.
That doesn’t seem very different to me.
