Probing Beneath the Surface

I came across this piece on the recent revelation by America's former chief propagandist, Scott McLellan. By now, I trust you've learned of the book he is peddling on what really happened inside the White House over the last seven-plus years. The author of this article, one Rob Reynolds, argues there is nothing in McLellan's manifesto we don't already know, and that this is an obvious attempt to exploit the situation for personal gain. What Mr. McLellan should have done, argues Reynolds, was resign in the wake of Mr. Bush's decision to invade Iraq, in the manner of Jerald terHorst after learning of Gerald Ford's decision to pardon Richard Nixon.

I'm not here to comment on Scott McLellan; I reckon plenty of others have already done so. I'm here, rather, to comment on Mr. Rob Reynolds' writing, and how it reflects our society's undercurrents. First off, Mr. Reynolds raises some interesting points, such as the notion of the "permanent campaign" and John McCain's hesitance to appear in public with George W. Bush, so I encourage you to read his take on them. Having said that, two instances in his article caught my eye:

"Scott McClellan could have used a bit of terHorst's testicular fortitude."

So, from what I see, courage is equated with the possession of testicles, though Mr. Reynolds' use of this term does not surprise me in the least. The term "testicular fortitude" is invoked quite frequently when referring to courage, as is the poignant phrase "having the balls to..." My lack of surprise is what perturbs me: phallocentrism is ingrained even in our common language, our idioms. I'm not casting stones at Mr. Reynolds by any means - hell, I couldn't tell you the number of times I resorted to similar rhetoric - for I doubt he's aware of the connotations attached to his choice of idiom; my aim here is to bring these things to light, these signs of patriarchy that are now so automatic as to lie beyond our awareness. No doubt, one could argue against it to no end - much in the manner as one attempts to deny the persistence of racism - and succeed for the very reason that the collective conscious is oblivious to it.

My second item of concern is as follows:

"What Happened, McClellan's tardy tell-all, is already number one on the Amazon bestseller list and is sure to be a hot topic throughout the presidential race between Barack Obama and John McCain."

Barack Obama has secured the nomination? Strange. I switched on the television this morning to discover the race is still neck-and-neck, that Mrs. Clinton's bid for nomination remains very much alive. So, why would Mr. Reynolds declare Barack Obama the candidate for the Democratic Party? Does he figure Mrs. Clinton will concede, or perhaps self-destruct? Or is there something he knows that the rest of us do not? Or, speculating further, is this a reflection of his own desire? I suppose we'll simply never know.