Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review June 27, 2002 / 17 Tamuz, 5762

Robert W. Tracinski

JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Martha and the tall poppies | Why do so many people hate Martha Stewart? How does a home-decorating and entertaining expert with a sweet, wholesome public persona come to be portrayed as a major cultural villain?

Consider the past week's media frenzy over charges that Stewart engaged in "insider trading." The reaction in the press and by members of Congress -- who have launched an investigation -- is far out of proportion to the actual evidence or the alleged crime. Nor can this case explain the eagerness with which snide columnists and catty morning talk-show hosts contemplate the prospect of seeing Martha in prison -- joking, as one host did, about whether her cell will have matching curtains.

There is only one explanation for this tone of vicious glee. Martha is hated because she's a tall poppy.

I've been told that there is an Australian saying: "You have to cut down the tall poppies." In other words, anyone who dares to poke his head above the crowd must be attacked, denigrated and brought down to the common level. I don't know whether this Tall Poppy Syndrome, as it is called, is really typical of Australian culture -- but it is a widespread trend in American culture, and Martha Stewart is one of its favorite targets.

Martha-hatred is an established cottage industry, peddled in dozens of books and television profiles purporting to reveal Stewart as a shrewish employer, a neglectful mother, a cold wife, an ungrateful daughter, and everything else you could dream up. One charge keeps recurring as the central thread -- and real motive -- of all these claims: Martha is too perfect.

The problem with Martha Stewart, we are told, is that the lifestyle she promotes in her books, magazines and television shows projects an "unattainable" perfection. Her kitchen is too clean, her house is too beautiful, and her parties are too elegant. She gets too much done in a day. Such perfection, the charge goes, merely makes everyone else feel inadequate because they can't measure up.

This attitude is not shared by Martha's many fans (and customers), even those whose homes are not as lavish as hers. Most people are able to appreciate the accomplishments of others, even if they cannot match them. But for those who suffer from Tall Poppy Syndrome, other people's achievements are an affront, an intolerable reminder of their own shortcomings. These are the people who desperately search for dirt to sling at celebrities, to show that they aren't so good after all -- and who rush to join any witch hunt and repeat any allegation.

The Martha Stewart "scandal" is a case study in the Tall Poppy Syndrome.

First, it is important to grasp what non-crime "insider trading" is. The allegation is that Sam Waksal, CEO of the drug-development company ImClone, phoned relatives and close friends to warn them of an upcoming FDA ruling that would wreck his company's stock. This "inside information" supposedly gave Stewart and others an "unfair" advantage. In a "fair" world, apparently, investors are forced to hold on to their stock even when they know it's going to crash. Martha's alleged "crime" is not wanting to lose money.

But even the evidence for this pseudo-crime is lacking. Stewart, it turns out, had already sold much of her stock in ImClone the previous month but, according to one source, she was prevented by SEC limits from selling it all. This means that Martha made the decision to sell long before the FDA's ruling. As for her phone calls with Waksal, they are close friends and according to some reports were once romantically linked. Is it the SEC's job to monitor the friendships and love lives of CEOs?

In fact, few commentators have bothered to wait for evidence before passing judgment. The same people who assume Martha is a shrew because she is "too perfect" also assume she's a swindler because she's rich. No further evidence is needed.

Martha Stewart is not alone; ask Bill Gates what kind of welcome a self-made man can expect today. Or consider the achievers who impose restraints on themselves -- as in Justice Stevens's recent death penalty decision. A man nominated to the Supreme Court for his superior knowledge and wisdom looks instead to public opinion polls to decide how government may wield the power of life and death. Apparently Justice Stevens didn't want to be a tall poppy.

This trend is not merely ugly; it's dangerous. A culture that hates its highest achievers will mow down its tall poppies -- and end up with nothing but weeds.

Enjoy this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

Comment on JWR contributor Robert W. Tracinski's column by clicking here.

06/21/02: The post-colonialist famine
06/12/02: America's Maginot Line
06/07/02: Time's up for Pakistan
05/28/02: Freedom's defenders
05/22/02: What they knew and when they knew it
05/16/02: The mixed-economy monster
05/08/02: Conference in Cloud Cuckoo Land
04/25/02: The 'Palestinian" victims?
04/18/02: Why Israel must not withdraw
04/09/02: LIVE FROM RAMALLAH: The Theater of the Absurd
03/26/02: Campaign finance corruption
03/21/02: Who is George Bush?
03/14/02: The prophets of defeatism
02/21/02: The war on terrorism and the war on reality
02/14/02: Multilateralism's one-way street
02/05/02: The Powell Problem
01/29/02: A profligate and irresponsible distortion of congressional priorities
01/22/02: Liberal conspiracy theories
01/15/02: Fading shock and fading resolve
01/08/02: Argentina's intellectual collapse
12/31/02: The real person of the year
12/26/01: With friends like us ...
12/19/01: Ending the "peace process war"
12/11/01: The ruthless grip of logic
12/04/01: War powers without war
11/27/01: An Afghanistan Thanksgiving
11/20/01: The end of the beginning
11/06/01: The phony war
10/30/01: A war against Islam
10/23/01: The economics of war
10/16/01: A culture of death
10/11/01: An empire of ideals
10/01/01: Why they hate us
09/24/01: The lessons of war
09/20/01: What a real war looks like
09/17/01: America's war song
09/12/01: It is worse than Pearl Harbor
09/11/01: Out of the fire and back into the frying pan
09/05/01: The UN Conference of Racists
08/28/01: Waging war on profits and lives
08/20/01: The Bizarro-World War
08/08/01: The death toll of environmentalism
07/31/01: Where does America stand?
07/25/01: Barbarians at the G8
07/17/01: The carrot and the carrot
07/11/01: The real Brave New World
07/03/01: The child-manipulators
06/19/01: The scientist trap
06/11/01: The National Academy of Dubious Science