Learning From France

Over five years ago I wrote a piece with the title “Learningfrom Italy,” and earlier this week I wrote about “Learning From Harvey.”

One benefit of behavior having consequences is the ability to use those consequences as feedback to make changes and corrections – or to continue on the same course while enjoying favorable outcomes.  When a bad situation can be traced to our own choices, it makes sense to change.  Many people figure this out.  The wiser ones look at the behavior of others, those who are struggling, to discover what behavior to avoid before they encounter the same difficulties.  Learning from the mistakes of others is always the recommended path.

What struck me about the news from France last week was the Washington Post headline about their president:  “French President Macron has spent $30,000 on makeup services in just 3 months.”  That comes out to about $330 per day.  “The fees were apparently for doing up the president in advance of news conferences, public appearances and various travels.”  (And he’s doing this while trying to cut government spending!)

But as long as we are looking at France, what about Macron’s predecessor?  Going back to a New York Times article from about 15 months ago, “President François Hollande’s personal hairdresser has been paid 9,895 euros – over $10,000 – per month since Mr. Hollande was elected in 2012, about the same amount as a government minister’s salary.”  That comes out to a total of close to half a million dollars – for haircuts!  The previously cited WAPO article points out that the makeup spending of Hollande and Nicolas Sarkozy, who was president before him, was not much different from Macron’s.

French voters are suspicious of their motives for such extravagant spending.  They accuse their leaders of being vain and out of touch.  But as politicians in a digital age, they probably recognize the power of optics.  Anyone who wants to make them look bad need not go to all the trouble of debating official behavior.  All they need are some unflattering pictures to promote a negative impression.  Everyone in the public eye must always look their best, lest their opponents take advantage.

Who decides that?  It’s not the politicians nor the advisors nor the press.  It’s the voters themselves – who not only vote, but also purchase products, attend movies and back causes using the same criteria.  This need for optimal optics is more evidence of the victory of the superficial over the substantive – and that’s a perspective issue.  How much better off would the French citizens be if they put more stock in competence than in appearance.  Shouldn’t we learn from them to avoid facing the same problems here?

That would be great, but everyone knows the same kind of book-by-its-cover judging goes on in America to at least the same extent, as attractive movie stars are allowed to claim credibility on subjects they have no expertise in, from vaccinations to climate change.  Celebrities run for office and win based on popularity rather than qualifications. 

Ordinary Americans also understand the power of appearance in their personal lives spending over $60 billion a year on beauty and cosmetics.  As another example, check out this on-line eyeglasses site offering 200,000 different frames with, of course, many choices of designer brands.  For glasses these days, it’s less about seeing than being seen.  The examples are legion from designer clothing and accessories to fine wine and impressive cars!  (Possibly the core of the race-relations problems and other discriminatory practices in America is the looks-like-me criteria unconsciously practiced by hiring managers and others, and assumed as an imperative when children choose a role model.  Even the concept of diversity is defined more by appearance than true variety of contributions.)

Who are we trying to impress, or a better question may be, why do we let ourselves be so easily impressed by surface characteristics?

How much better off could we be if we wisely learned from the French, demanding our public figures act the part rather than look the part – and especially embedding that philosophy into the rest of our behavior.