By now everyone knows the pathetic story of Tareq and Michaele Salahi's successful crash of last week's White House state dinner. Trying to land a spot on Bravo network's upcoming Real Housewives of DC, they apparently believed attendance at this diplomatic affair would ensure the world knew they were major players in the DC scene. Instead, most everyone thinks they're a joke. But don't blame Bravo. They are merely documenting the best--and worst--of human achievement.
First, one caveat--no one yet knows whether the Salahis will be featured on the upcoming Real Housewives of DC. After the White House incident, a Bravo spokesperson
told Zap2it, "We are in the middle of production, we have been shooting since about the middle of September. Bravo never announces cast members, doesn't disclose specifics about production ever with its reality programming. That's why the cast has not been officially announced, because we need to get all the way through production. We've got many more weeks of shooting before we finish up with the production... Michaele is one of the handful of women that we have been documenting, but again, we have not announced the cast."
Speculation has been rampant that the Salahis must have believed that a high-profile attendance might boost their chances of being on the show. Among her other strategies appears to be expensive (
and often unpaid) primping at an exclusive Georgetown salon, so as to
look the part of socialite.
Likewise, to create a sense of past accomplishment, Michaele apparently made up an affiliation with the Washington Redskins Cheerleaders: The President of the Washington Redskins Cheerleaders Alumni Association,
Terri Lamb, told the Post that "We have no record that she ever was a Redskins cheerleader. She was listed on our 1991 roster at Ms. Salahi's request and based on her misrepresentation to us." How sad.
The ironic fact about the Salahi's social aspirations are that all of the DC folks who actually "are" on the "inside" would never appear on the show. Not only would most probably think exposing one's daily habits to national television is a silly idea, there is also the more important matter of professional discretion. To be on the inside in Washington as a power player--most of whom weren't themselves invited to this State dinner--is to be a person who knows what parts of one's life to keep out of the public eye.
As local businessperson and community chronicler
Carol Joynt suggests: "discretion is key to marital and professional success...Most of the husbands here -- those who are the real deal -- live off the public dollar."
A Politico story echoed the basic fact that most major players on the DC inside wouldn't go near this kind of exposure: "Among those who would have made the show more Washington focused -- but chose to opt out -- is Georgetown's Susanna Quinn, wife of Democratic lobbyist Jack Quinn. 'My husband didn't achieve all his success so I could turn into an older, paler Lauren Conrad,'...referring to the 20-something star of The Hills."
Likewise, many of the women who might have participated
are themselves highly accomplished professionals: "Lobbyist Edwina Rogers thought the show was about D.C. lifestyles. Would she do Housewives? 'I don't really know,' she said. 'I'm not a housewife. I run a trade association.'"
Of course many of those on the inside may very well be posers, themselves. But they have gotten on the inside--most of them--because of a record of accomplishment in the political and policy game. Such ambition and hard work counts for something; one doesn't get on the inside simply through cultivating a celebrity image. Those like the Salahis may sneak into events and shake someone's hand, but everyone knows they don't have a seat at the tables of power and policy.
So does this indict Bravo's chronicling of such posers and wannabes?
Watch Bravo most nights, and you may think the Salahis are in good company.
I'll admit that I'm a bit of a Bravo junkie. When I'm tired, it's late, and I'm done with a long day of work, a little bit of lighthearted television at 10pm can be the relaxation I need. When I tune in, I can't help but see many of the shows to be an interesting window into modern culture, and a fascinating view into human nature.
Over the past few years, the Real Housewives franchise has chronicled coast-to-coast clueless elitism, conspicuous consumption, and catfighting more suitable for a 5th-grade playground. There are just too many examples of the impressive obliviousness of these characters to mention.
Perhaps Kim Zolciak, of the Real Housewives of Atlanta, exemplifies the lack of authenticity that some of these cast members exhibit, through her un-ironic discussions of her cascading wig, her "Big Papa" (this unknown figure is her married lover and possible source of income), and her cringe-inducing attempts to be a singer. So much attempt, so little result.
There are, to be sure, some genuine moments of human kindness and suffering that break through on the show, and even a few sympathetic characters (Jill and Bethany in New York, Jeana (maybe Gretchen) in Orange County).
Even real achievement (a fair number of them do seem to work hard for their money) and genuine care and concern for others sometimes peeks out from behind the luxurious spending and catty bickering. But most of the time, I cringe at the displays of reckless abandon for other people's dignity and well-being.
What redeems Bravo's cast of characters is another show, Top Chef, which chronicles the trials and tortures of some of the best rising chefs in America. The achievements of these chefs stand in marked contrast to the unaccomplished striving of some of the Housewives--either the real cast members, or the wannabe ones like the Salahis.
Where Real Housewives can, at times, glorify purchased fame and self-importance, the contestants on Top Chef sink or swim on the basis of how much excellence they can pull together in their skillful mastery of top-flight cooking.
The contestants--many already accomplished culinary artists--battle it out under grueling conditions to create top food, usually with some significant restrictions on time, manner, and content. Couple that with having to be judged by some of the legendary chefs of the world, and you realize why they face intense pressure. Week after week, many of them perform astounding feats of technical perfection and creative composition.
As the chef of the century Joël Robuchon said earlier in this season, (a chef not known for unwarranted praise), "I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the work of these young candidates. We saw some very successful dishes." There is no resting on one's laurels--to prevail on Top Chef comes only through the achievement of excellence.
The chefs are not all perfect specimens--there are whiners and those prone to be lazy and skate by on a limited range of techniques. There are also the petty fights and underhanded maneuvers. Some of the most talented culinary artists can, at times, show some poor behavior towards their fellows.
Top Chef, (like Real Housewives), is, after all, a show that examines important elements of the human condition. Bravo captures it all on film. The trick is that it's up to us viewers to sort out whose excellence we should emulate and who we should judge to be untalented, regrettably mean, or even baseless and petty.
The Salahis, striving as they are, exhibit some fairly base inclinations of ambition and desires to be recognized as people they don't yet deserve to be. Such inclinations are in all of us, to be sure, and the Real Housewives franchise puts a spotlight on these traits. Bravo may well include the Salahis in the Real Housewives of DC. If they don't, I'm sure there will be others who may make us cringe at times with their petty striving and inflated egos. We can learn cautionary tales by watching them.
Alternately, Bravo's Top Chef usually offers us exemplary models of talent, creativity, and achievement. Many of them even seem to be genuinely decent people. Bravo to them.
