“Appealing to emotion more than reason”the intimate gradually became in the 20th century “a centerpiece of access to power and its exercise in the United States”writes Thomas Snégaroff, journalist and historian specializing in the contemporary United States. He details his remarks in a richly illustrated book, In the privacy of American presidents, which paints a portrait of twenty of them.
In the hands of communicators, who began to shape the image of presidents in the 1920s, “intimacy is a weapon of mass construction.” This is, for example, the lie of Thomas Woodrow Wilson (Democrat, 1913-1921), who hid his condition from the world after a stroke which left him in a wheelchair. It was Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democrat, 1933-1945) who made people believe that he was cured of polio and could walk again – he could only do so thanks to splints made invisible in photos.
Others cultivate simplicity, like Harry Truman, (Democrat, 1945-1953), the president “normal” who dropped two bombs on Japan, photographed toasting toast in his kitchen like an average American. Of all, the most fabricated image, the furthest from reality, is that of the inevitable John F. Kennedy (Democrat, 1961-1963). The image of a perfect, young and handsome couple that he forms with Jackie hides in particular a fickle husband with an unbridled sex life and a precarious state of health – he suffered from Addison's disease which forced him to walk with crutches because he was in so much pain.
This cult of secrecy, respected by those around him and the media at the time, was shattered with the ultra-intimate unpacking of the Monica Lewinsky sexual affair which marked the presidency of Bill Clinton (Democrat, 1993-2001). In the age of cameras and social networks, the private lives of politicians are over. But, as a major communication issue, the intimate continues to be staged for political purposes, even in the current presidential campaign – notably through age and mental health, which are constantly questioned. Thomas Snégaroff agreed to give us his feelings on the image issues currently being played out between Democrat Kamala Harris and Republican Donald Trump, neck and neck in the polls, with a view to the election of November 5, 2024. .
Franceinfo Culture: In your book, you show that intimacy gradually became in the 20th century a key to access to the supreme office in the United States. How did this shift occur?
Thomas Snégaroff : The start is the arrival of the popular press at the beginning of the 20th century, this very general public press which goes hand in hand with photography, crucial for conveying a certain image of private life. This will boost the use of intimacy in political life, before television. At that point, presidents feel that speaking directly to Americans becomes possible. So, we can talk to them about the program, but we can also talk to them about ourselves to tell Americans how much we are like them.
You show that advertisers at Mad Men began coaching presidents in the 1920s.
Yes, communicators arrived in the 1920s, and they began to sell politicians like soap. For Calvin Coolidge (August 2, 1923 – March 4, 1929), they put a lot of emphasis on his wife Grace, for example, always dapper, well dressed. Hollywood stars also arrive during electoral campaigns. At that moment, we begin to put forward values ; values of courage, virility, empathy, values also of humility. And the best way to highlight these values on which Americans will make their decisions is not so much to evoke a political program. The most effective and direct thing is to talk about your private life. And communicators ensure that. Until the 1970s, they had full control of highlighting private life without fearing that journalists would come and scratch the truth. It was not until the 1980s that we began to have more communicators than political advisors during campaigns.
In this process of unveiling, which is also a construction, you show that there is also a lot of hidden intimacy. Particularly in terms of health, like Franklin Roosevelt who made people believe that he was cured of poliomyelitis or John F. Kennedy who hid his Addison's disease. Would this type of lie still be possible today?
What's interesting is that it's not just lies of omission that mask illnesses. Both Roosevelt and Kennedy are in reality selling another image of themselves, which is an image of great physical fitness, for one who has overcome illness, for the other who embodies vitality and youth. So would this be possible today? I have long thought that since the 1970s, it has become much more difficult to highlight one's intimacy without fearing that the sword will be double-edged. Except that Donald Trump shook me up a bit… Because when we discovered recordings of him saying that he wanted “grab women by the pussy” and kiss them by force, etc., we all said to ourselves, he's done. Except no. But then why? I understood that in reality, intimate life becomes a double-edged sword if, and only if, it contravenes and contradicts a discourse and a political construction. While there, she did not contradict him at all, the Americans were not surprised by the outrageous remarks of a man whose excesses they already knew. Ultimately, it even reinforced a kind of sincerity on Trump's part. In fact, what is wrong is when the revealed intimacy reveals insincerity. Let's imagine a politician with very homophobic speech who we discover goes to parks to meet boys. This is political death. If it had been discovered that Kennedy was ill, it would have been extremely painful for him, I think, politically. Because his entire mythological construction of America's eternal youth would have collapsed.
To continue on Donald Trump, how do you explain the contradiction between this crude character, devoid of empathy (as shown in your book), and often outlaw, and the bigoted side of the conservative Americans who brought him to power? power ? They are against abortion, but its sexual scandals do not bother them, they vomit the elites, but they trust a billionaire heir who has always staged his fortune…
Because it is an electorate that is ultra-strategist. They decide to turn a blind eye to all this because they know he will be able to achieve what no politician has ever achieved for them, namely the overturning of Roe v. Wade [arrêt de la Cour Suprême de 1973 qui garantissait le droit à l’avortement dans tous les États et annulé le 24 juin 2022 par la Cour suprême, dont trois juges conservateurs avaient été nommés par Donald Trump]and support for moving the Israeli capital from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a series of things that American evangelicals found in him. Moreover, 77% of Trump voters consider him morally failing. We must understand that they do not vote for moral reasons. Unlike the vote for Barack Obama which was a moral vote, the vote for Trump is a strategic and ultra-political vote. In this respect, the use of privacy in politics is not above ground. It depends each time on a particular condition, on a particular candidate, on a particular moment too.
In mid-October, the White House released a medical report on Kamala Harris, 60, saying she was in excellent health. A way of pointing out his eighteen-year gap with Donald Trump, aged 78. The Democratic candidate also criticized her rival for his lack of transparency regarding his state of health. Does this question of health and age still have an impact on Americans' choices?
There are so many other issues of polarization that this question seems quite secondary. This was more relevant when Joe Biden was still a candidate, because it was questionable whether he was capable of governing. But this election promises to be so close that everything can count in the end. In fact, the issue of health, including mental health, arises as both sides have built an incredibly dangerous world, with America on the verge of extinction. This pushes us to demand an extremely powerful head of state and this serves Donald Trump, who is stretching the stakes to the maximum. Today, Americans need to have Superman in the White House, someone in great shape who will face enormous challenges. The Democrats want Superman because the election of the other is the pure and simple disappearance of America. And Republicans want Superman because, for them, America is under siege by migrants.
Are men and women equal in this use of privacy for political purposes? Hillary Clinton narrowly failed to get elected. Is it more delicate, more difficult for a woman?
Yes, it's much more difficult for a woman because there are two great expectations among Americans, often cyclical, that I mention in the book, which are alternately those of virility and empathy, even if You often have to be a bit of both to access the highest office. A woman, and this is Hillary Clinton's problem in 2008, absolutely needs to show her virility. And since there has never been a woman president, we have to overplay this virility a little. Except that by overplaying virility, the risk is to appear like a cold ice cube, without emotions. However, it is also an expectation of the Americans to have someone in the White House who is sympathetic, who shows their emotions. The problem is that if she starts crying, as happened in 2008, all that remains, according to conservative commentators, is a little thing incapable of governing. Whereas a man who cries can be a manly tear, like Reagan or Obama. Kamala Harris gets away with laughing. Her laughter, I am sure, has a double purpose: to humanize her, without devirilizing her.
“A good candidate for the American presidency is someone who holds up a flattering mirror to Americansr”, you write. Without wanting to make you a pythia, what mirror and what intimate story do you think Americans need right now?
They need a flattering mirror. So either it is the mirror of a nostalgic America, of a past that never existed, as Donald Trump sells them, of an America that is rediscovering its greatness, without saying when it was, and a largely white and virilistic grandeur. Either it is an America that imagines a future that is itself poorly defined, but empathetic. So either it's a virilist nostalgia, or it's an empathetic future. This, in my opinion, is what is at stake in this election.
“In the privacy of American presidents” by Thomas Snégaroff (editions Tallandier, 26.90 euros) was published on September 19, 2024
