Lipstick: Politics, Pouts, and Prettiness

This season, lipstick may have more to do with power politics than pretty pouts.

“What’s the difference between a pit bull and a Hockey Mom?” asked Sarah Palin, Republican vice presidential candidate, in her recent speech to the Republican National Convention.

“Lipstick!”

You can put lipstick on a pig. It’s still a pig,” retorted Obama the following week as he spoke of Republican policies.

How did we get from discussing the war in Iraq to cosmetic testing on animals?How did we get from discussing the war in Iraq to cosmetic testing on animals?

McCain’s party demanded an apology from Obama, asserting the comment was directed at Palin (even though McCain, in the past, has used the lipstick metaphor himself to criticize Hilary Clinton on health care).

On the Letterman Show Obama clarified his choice in words is an old phrase commonly used in Illinois and it wasn’t targeted at Palin. The dolled-up pig in question was meant to refer to Republican economic policies — an ugly policy is still an ugly policy even if it has lipstick on.

And so unfolds the great lipstick debate.

This isn’t the first time lipstick and politics find themselves snuggled so closely. In fact, the connection between lipstick sales and the economy is so acute that the phenomenon of lipstick sales increasing during tough economic times has been dubbed the “Leading Lipstick Indicator” or the “Lipstick Effect.”

So what’s the psychology behind red-hot lipstick sales during firgid economic times? Some say it is because women turn to purchasing less expensive indulgences, like lipstick, instead of more costly ones, like jewellery. Others argue that it is more about beauty — women are putting on a pretty face to give the illusion everything is rosy.

Whether they realize it or not, Americans are getting a crash course in what value beauty holds in society. Beauty crosses political lines, knows no cultural bounries, and is appreciated by those as young as Trigg Palin (Sarah Palin’s youngest child) and as old as John McCain.

Almost as many viewers tuned into Palin’s speech as they did to Obama’s. Would it have created as much of a stir if she were, say, half as attractive and two decades older? Probably not.

A former beauty queen, Palin knows very well that her looks play a role in life and in her appeal as veep nominee. And she doesn’t shy away from using them: high heels, stocking-less legs, feminine suits, highlights and coifed hair, and of course, lipstick. Regardless of her views on gun laws, Palin’s weapon of choice in this election comes from the cosmetics counter. Regardless of her views on gun laws, Palin’s weapon of choice in this election comes from the cosmetics counter.

Nancy Etcoff discusses the role of beauty in society from an academic and historical perspective in her book Survival of the Prettiest. The Harvard psychologist writes that beauty is a universal part of human experience – beauty is not a myth, nor a backlash against feminism. Beauty matters, and it is okay, sometimes even useful, to cultivate it.

This is the view that Palin has taken and it is a perfectly good strategy — her looks, her lipstick, and her attractive family are helping her garner more attention for the Republicans. And who can blame her. In an election, and any time one is striving for success, you have to present your absolute best self and use all the tricks in the book to get ahead.

Will lipstick swing the US Presidential Election? Probably not. But it, paired with Palin, have certainly helped create momentum for McCain.

While I am not out to defend Palin’s political views, I do love the excitement, glamour, and intrigue of American politics. But, I’m voting on a different date, in a different country, and there will be very different names on the ticket — and, as my Canadian readers can attest to, it is unlikely lipstick will do much for Harper or Dion.