Chelsea by Richard Sale

Bravo for Walrus for excoriating this puff of inane wind: “In her May issue editor's letter, ELLE Editor-in-Chief, Robbie Myers, writes: ‘There is something innately regal about Chelsea—a kind of grace that doesn't seem practiced, or trotted out just for public consumption. She's a person of substance for sure, a young woman who, while measured in her manner, has a fierceness of conviction, and a calling to make the world a better place.’" 

First of all, I’m sure the most passionate admirer of this prose is the author.  I am not sure of very many things in life, but I am quite sure of that. Sunshine beams at her from her parents, her associates, her friends. No sullen cloud would be impertinent enough to cast a shadow over this radiant language, and such dazzling virtuosity. The writer of this is being born aloft by the conviction that she has produced a prose masterpiece. 

But has she? 

 

Questions must be asked.  What does Chelsea’s “regal” grace consist of?  Of course, the way we present ourselves in society tells very much about us. As a young man I was neurotically shy. It was a curse. I hated groups or crowds, and an editor of mine at Life Magazine once said that when I entered a bustling scene, it was like seeing “an owl being forced out upon the day.” I shrank from the spot light and was suspicious of fresh contacts. 

So what action did Chelsea perform that revealed her regal grace? Did she carry herself with majestic erectness? (Apparently Chelsea was not an owl forced out upon the day.) But what did the editor see? What struck her eye? When we look without bias at another person, what we first notice is their posture, their self command, their bodily discipline, their ability to exhibit a presence that displays poise, flexibility and balance. Was Chelsea’s  bearing energetic? Were her movements supple, free of self-consciousness and lacking any trace of awkwardness. Were her movements fluid and becoming? In other words, it would hard to rhapsodize over a public figure that slinks into social situation acting like a kicked dog. 

However, we have to remember that the first impressions we have of someone are going to be the most reliable. First impressions are the ones that tell the truth. We are very malleable people,  uncritically gullible and susceptible, and additional exposure to a famous person is likely to betray what we first saw. We reason ourselves out of our initial perceptions. Of course, if a subject learns that we are watching them, they immediately change, and the changes are not for the better. They will lapse into the habitual. They will don their disguises. So what we want to do is to catch them off guard. Otherwise, additional views of our subject will be like looking at a shop window, with the most valuable, eye-catching goods put up front, and the innate defects erased by calculated show. 

In other words, what do we find if we look carefully at another human being over time, at times when they are not aware of being watched?  Of course, everyone is polite when meeting people for the first time.  Everyone smiles benignly at everyone else at a reception. But one of the first things we must try to discern is a person’s habitual expression, and unfortunately, a person’s habitual expression is likely to be concealed by disguises and fake show and `1disconcerting and tawdry display. Deciphering it will take time. But even the most committed hypocrite cannot be on guard all the time, famous or not. They slip and make mistakes. But we want to obtain is a glimpse of them when they are bored, tired, ill humored, out of sorts or annoyed.  What do we see then if we look? 

I have a son who hates to be photographed for family scenes, because he wants his expression to be sincere, not artificially sweet, or manicured or coerced for the occasion.  He is an honest man, and he has a point. An expression of any person in the public eye can simply be an act; their look can put on or taken off like any fake mask; it can be donned or removed in a moment. But the habitual  expression of a person is not the work of a moment – it is the work of years. If we , in our deepest, most habitual natures, are secretly embittered, cruel, fault finding, filled to the top with venomous malice – all these will displayed at some point when we drop our guard. 

When we  try to examine the face of someone famous, our ambition is to discern their habitual expression. But even the most committed hypocrite cannot be on guard all the time. They slip and make mistakes. Of course, everyone is polite when meeting people for the first time.  Everyone smiles benignly at everyone else at a reception. But we want to obtain is a glimpse of our subject when they are bored, tired, ill humored, out of sorts or annoyed.  What do you see then if we look? 

The question remains, what personal qualities dose Chelsea possess that make her “regal?”  When an impartial spectator, who had not been briefed, watches Chelsea as she steps into any scene – what will they really see and admire? What is truly "regal" as she enters? Does the audience grasp and adhere to its own original perceptions of this young lady, or have their perceptions already been corrupted by the manufactured enthusiasms of the media, like the Elle editor. 

Imagined Virtues 

The Elle editor first praises Chelsea’s appearance, her natural but “regal” grace, but then in the next sentence, she switches from personal observation to Chelsea’s public stances on public matters, declaring that in spite of or because of Chelsea’s regality, she has fierce yet measured calling to “make the word a better place.” 

Never mind the stale, hackneyed truism. The truth is that we have to display caution when we look at a famous person. Just the fact that they are famous is a check on honest thought. Think of Heisenberg's observation that the  aspect of a thing, the ability to measure it, is changed by the very act of looking at it. You cannot read or see the opinions of other people at first sight. The stage play is not the real performance.  In viewing famous people, all of us are awed hypocrites surrendering meekly to their superiority. Such overly lush, slavish, obsequious flattery such as the Elle editor is not simply ass kissing, it s a reckless and determined search for polyps. The Elle editor does not evince an inch of sincerity; any particle of inner honesty, any capacity for accurate perception, and the very lushness of her flattering, servile prose make us turn away from such a bogus concoction,  trying very hard to hide our contempt. What the author has produced is merely is shameless, idolatrous bull shit. If you found this stuff on a sidewalk, you would need a garden hose to get rid of it.  

This is prose written by someone on their knees. It is the product of a debased mind. Reading this bit of prose is like read a vacation brochure, the prating of endless desert beaches, endless martinis,  attentive and thoughtful service, evening where handsome dance teams swirl tier way across the dance floor. It is clear from Elle, that Chelsea already has followers, callow people who have already assumed extreme attitudes of worshipful submission, 

Do we really know anything of her inner character, the productive capacity of Chelsea’s mental activity, her ability to overcome of obstacles overcome faults and bad habits, her ability to work on in spite of fatigue and pain? Does she truly have any inner grace? Does she really have a nature that that sympathizes with people rather than using them? 

Beauty and the Best 

For one thing, Chelsea is nota beauty. In my day, she would be seen as a “geek.” (I was also seen as a geek: an object of ridicule, the last to be chosen for teams, etc.) This observation is not meant to be unkind to her in any way Chelsea is earnest, intelligent, and very articulate.. As I hobble about on my cane, I am aware of the rule that no one should ever feel contempt for what  people can’t help. If you were not born a beauty, that’s bad luck. It’s a misfortune, not a fault. I respect Chelsea for her youth and assume that she means well and when she says that she wants to do well in the world.  

So to say that Chelsea is not a beauty in no way disqualifies her talents. The same could be said of Eleanor Roosevelt. Early in her life, her inner value was  ignored because she lacked good looks. Her own personal appearance constantly humiliated her throughout her life. But Eleanor battled with her defects. The outstanding distinction of her public life rested in part on her struggle with her homeliness. Her own defects sharpened and honed her vision of those who were also ill favored, ignored, ridiculed, and downtrodden. Her own defects led to her strenuous exertions intended to help, the feeble, weak, and helpless in life, the wretched in life who desperately needed public support  Think of Eleanor’s amazingly moral courage, her strong stance on lynching, her tireless efforts to obtain more rights for the black citizens of the country. Looks mattered little to mind set on correcting the injustices inflicted on ordinary people. As a woman, she was outstanding in her intrepidly, her contempt for softness, her obedience to principle  – the rocks on which our country rests.  

One hopes that Chelsea’s life would turn out in a similar way.  We define out personalities partly by the reaction of others to it. I suspect that if your family is powerful and famous when your name comes tripping off everyone’s tongue, when vulgar admiration stops to gawk and drool when you enter a  scene- how genuine is the reaction that you produce?  Of course, false cue cards litter the way: be obliging, be familiar, be happy, be subservient, and follow the mob.  Unfortunately, the mob follow where they have been led, but people in the mass are fickle; they change their habits, their language, manners and conventions without warning; and yet, for all their idealism, they retain their evil ways, firm and constant in wrongdoing, exhibiting only  indifference towards genuine virtue. 

Note 

I have read the excerpts  from the Elle article in which Chelsea simply produced predictable and mechanical quotes that merely parrot what her mother is already saying.  There is not an atom of original thought in what Chelsea said. They display loyalty to her mother and little else. It is clear that she has become a puppet of her mother’s will. There is little glory in that. 

The Elle editor admired Chelsea for being famous, influential and rich. Chelsea is employed by her parents. NBC paid her $600,000 a year for three years, and she gets $75,000 for each speech she gives. One must wonder what politics will do to Chelsea: what harm they will wreak on her integrity, her independence and originality, her ability to resist, mould, refashion, and stand apart. 

As the elections approach the question looms. Do we really want to elect phantoms as our leaders? Do we really want to worship creatures who have been created by chiefly by favorable publicity, creatures that are enamored of its own vaporings, addicted to drinking their own bath water? 

Already the massive political cataracts of a coming election are thundering down. Mawkish and dishwaterly people, ignorant zealots  -- all discovered a fresh purpose: the lure of raw power. Caught up by the current fads and opportunities, they are being pulled over the brink of truthfulness and decency and principle, to plummet end over end into the boiling turmoil of blind, underhanded will,  dishonesty, ignorance, malice, perversity, and greedy self-seeking that is already lodged at the bottom. 

The question is, do we really want to elect phantoms as our leaders? Do we really want to worship creatures who have been created by chiefly by favorable publicity that is enamored of its own vaporings, endlessly drinking its own bath water? 

This would ignore great hazards. Politics is one of the numberless ways for human beings to behave like imbeciles. Politics is the spectacle of people trying to get elected by promising people more than they can perform.  The less some people know, the more they are eager to pronounce on matters beyond their capacity. Elections are  always the refuge of the mediocre and the commonplace. The mob, it seems, never tires of the ignoble. 

Amid today’s turmoil, it pays us to remember this -- that great ideas come from lonely souls isolated in their suffering

Comments

[jr786]

she has fierce yet measured calling to “make the word a better place.”

Nice; she could start with not writing.

[BabelFish]

Richard, thank you, as always, for your writing. I will say this, it will be very interesting to see Chelsea if and when she flashes great anger in public. I do think you have the point on this. How could we think ill of Hillary, for she has produced our next Queen, who is splendid and deity like even in her youthful adulthood.

[Lars]

Well done, Mr. Sale, but highly depressing. This is why we so often are left with choosing the less threatening of two egomaniacs. It is also a reminder that there is not a lot of difference between many in the media and garbage collectors, even if the latter are more useful.

There is an effort to create an aristocracy in the US. The House just voted to assist in that effort. I hope it fails before public executions become the remedy, as it has in the past.

[AEL]

There are 320 million people in the USA.

It is inescapable that when you vote for a President that you are voting for a phantom.

[Nightsticker]

Richard,

You captured the essence of the matter beautifully!
Not to be cruel, but in the Bu we had an expression
applied to girls of a certain degree of looks "On the decent
side of plain". This meant that no bags were required but
not much else could be said.

Nightsticker
USMC 65-72
FBI 72-96

[Charles I]

Aww Richard your articles are too long and don't have good pictures. . .Kanye West thinks he's God and John Lennon with a wife whose ass is peddled as the Fundament of culture. At least they're not running for office . . yet.

Canada's only female Prime Minister Kim Campbell- albeit unelected - once quipped than elections were no time for serious discussion of the issues.

Now you've got me wondering just when it was a really great idea last came along, as opposed to anew gadget or trinket that seems "great" until 2.0 comes out.

[MRW]

All I see when I look at Chelsea is Webb Hubbell, and he was one ugly f**k, mouth like a trout.

[rjj]

what has she written other than her masters and PhD theses?

[rjj]

Indeed, but is she flat chested? Anybody know?

[rjj]

"Amid today’s turmoil, it pays us to remember this -- that great ideas come from lonely souls isolated in their suffering." (Sale)

Growing up in a world predatory-parasitic power groupies would be isolating, lonely --and threatening.

Being an object of scrutiny plus the subject of speculation and Limbaugh-class comment by all the xiaoren (for definition, see below; for examples, see above) on the fucking globe might cause enough pain to qualify as suffering.

The kid seems smart enough, so three of the conditions are met. "Great Ideas" may be in progress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junzi (4th paragraph)

[richardsale990@hotmail.com]

Touche.

Richard

[richardsale990@hotmail.com]

well said.

Richard

[Bill H]

"NBC paid her $600,000 a year for three years..."

And one has to question whether a person of the grace and integrity described by the ELLE editor would accept such an outrageous amount of money for so little value rendered and based on such paltry qualification.

[William R. Cumming]

Chelsea of no interest to me now. But it will be of interest as she reacts to her mother's self-destruction in the campaign.

[William R. Cumming]

Topics if known?

[nick b]

I guess I am not paying close enough attention these days. Who knew that the opinion of an editor of a low circulation, women's fashion magazine carried so much weight or were worthy of so much discussion?

Please consider that the 'regal' comment and additional puffery were written by Ms. Myers, whose job it is to promote the cover subject of her magazine. Clearly, she lays it on thick. Still, Chelsea Clinton didn't say all these things about herself. Why then should she be criticized for someone else's opinion of her? More so, an opinion expressed for the purposes of marketing a fashion magazine.

I think it is equally misguided to call Ms. Clinton a mere 'puppet of her mother's will' or showing 'not one atom of original thought' (really, not even one?) for openly supporting her own mother in such an article. Seriously, what did you expect from an Elle magazine interview, a critical policy debate?

Lastly, if as Mr. Sale says, Ms. Clinton's not being a 'beauty' 'in no way disqualifies her talents'. Then why even bring it up?

[different clue]

The whole MSM-Industrial Complex and its mass mind-molding arms and associates work to drive out of the political process any non-phantoms who try to fight their way through it. That could be overcome by a long-established and slow building movement-load of people who know what they want and see a non-phantom who wants some of the same things.

A candidate Webb (for example) would be a non-phantom. The MSM-Industrial Complex would try to make his progress as slow as swimming through tar. Could a movement-load of people who already want to see and achieve what a candidate Webb (for example) might want to see and achieve be able to function as a movement breaking through the tar?

[Bobo]

He is our Hope! It is early and he is smart not to say anything as only the charlatans are out there now. Let them eat themselves and come August it will time to move out as only he knows where a leader should be. Out front!
Now what are intelligent men doing discussing a puff piece in a rag like Elle. The child has done well, no big mistakes, gone to college, married a GS man, born a child but still holding those trousers and skirts of her parents. Time will tell but for now a non entity.

[different clue]

Bobo,

Hopefully a "Webbist" movement (if we were to call it that) would make itself strong, organized and long-lasting enough to be able to produce its own hope in the long run. Movements which can outlive and function beyond their leaders have a greater chance of getting what they want over long timespans, I should think.

About discussing Elle, it is a part of the culture/country we live in.
To paraphrase Trotsky, " we may not be interested in Elle, but Elle is very interested in us." So it might merit a watchful discussion when it features a rising young carefully groomed and prepared glamouristocrat on its cover.

[Babak Makkinejad]

Richard Sale

I think you are over-estimating the importance of "looks".

There are men who are quite capable of loving an ugly women.

And there are beautiful women whose love life has been one catastrophe after another.

Any way, for the young woman in question, as is said in Persian, "Her donkey has crossed the river." - she is married with a god husband from a god family etc.

As another saying goes:

"It is the goat that should like the grass."

[Fred]

nick,

Elle's circulation is comparable to that of Rolling Stone's. Didn't the latter have a fake rape story that drove national media and political attention and policy making? What else would Rolling Stone write about, but music and the entertainment industry?

I agree Chelsea's looks are immaterial and it is no surprise she'd support her mother. The fact that her own touted leadership ability in running a multi-million dollar tax exempt foundation which may be influenced by foreign government donations and whose state purpose is influencing US national policy makes her fair game for critiques on her leadership ability and the integrity of her other members of the foundation's leadership team.

[Fred]

Bill,

I remember when Tom Delay got enormous flack and an investigation over his wife being paid allot less for consulting. Fortunately the Clinton's, at least Chelsea, was not in office. Was her mom Secretary of State or Senator during that three years? And just what did she do to be worth more than half-a-million a year - other than being the former president's daughter?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/06/13/what-did-nbc-newss-chelsea-clinton-do-for-her-600000-salary/

[Fred]

Babak,

I think the reference to looks is a fact of American cultural life and not a personal commentary on Chelsea. Mr. Sale is making this in reference to Eleanor Roosevelt, whose leadership in the public realm is matched by few women in American history. Chelsea has faced few of the hardships Mrs. Roosevelt faced, probably the exact opposite.

[Richard Sale]

It was a remark intended to defend her. the initial apperances are often misleading.

Richard Sale

[William R. Cumming]

N.B. IMO a very smart self-described neo-con has written a book entitled QUEEN to be released June 19th and about how HC will run her campaign and win election. The author is HUGH HEWITT and was a staffer in the Reagan Administration WH. Asked why he wrote the book during an interview he stated something like "so the Republicans would know how to defeat her Presidential bid"!