When I read Maureen Dowd’s column about J.D. Vance’s smirk during the vice presidential debate, I was reminded of my abandoned academic career and my reading of literary journals that analyzed concepts like “phallogocentrism” and the “male gaze.” Over the past decade, such concerns have shifted from academia into everyday life.
Dowd criticized the portrayal of Kamala Harris in Trump campaign ads, depicting her as unable to safeguard Americans from foreign threats. This continues a trend of sexism that has affected women like the “bubbly” Geraldine Ferraro and the “hawkish” Hillary Clinton. It has nothing to do with statements like, “We’re not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States regarding this war.” As I learned in graduate school, logic is seen as phallic.
Dowd also noted that when Trump returned to Butler, Pennsylvania, on October 5, he was “martyr-milking” the assassination attempt, portraying it as the one moment of bravery in an otherwise self-pitying existence. In “Trumpworld,” showing sympathy is equated with weakness.
Similarly, Vance has “ambitiously code-switched into a Trumper,” embodying the “future of the [Republican] party,” characterized by “lies piled on lies, and darkness swallowing darkness.”
During the debate, did Vance snarl and shout like Trump or Hitler, with flames shooting from his eyes? No, according to Dowd, what was more “chilling” was his “mask of likability and empathy.”
However, this was not genuine empathy, but rather a facade of masculine aggression and toxicity—think Ted Bundy with charm. The tell? His smirk. Smirking by male Republicans is an undeniable indicator of male toxicity.
Consider Nick Sandmann, the 16-year-old in a MAGA hat, who smirked at a Native American elder during the March for Life in January 2019. While his classmates acted like typical boys, Sandmann remained composed.
“Nick Sandmann — caught on camera smirking at Native man — says he wasn’t smirking” read a typical headline. The teenager had to explain to then 48-year-old Savannah Guthrie that he was smiling after the Hebrew Israelites taunted the students, and the elder (Nathan Phillips) beat his drum, according to Phillips in order to “defuse” the situation. Sandmann’s explanation, however, that he smiled slightly in order to not escalate the situation seems more plausible. He also said that he had “every right” to stand there, in a public place.
For Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart, “the smirk” was the “indelible image” in “the latest edition of America’s thick book of Rorschach tests on race and difference.” He viewed Sandmann’s expression as the “inverse of the [Brett] Kavanaugh scowl” during Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony. Capehart’s strong reaction to Sandmann’s demeanor was reinforced by Sandmann’s comments to Guthrie, such as asserting his right to stand where he was and stating that if “Mr. Phillips” wanted to walk by, he wouldn’t stop him.
Despite Sandmann adhering to the outdated notion that children should be seen and not heard, Capehart remarked, “That he talks about an adult as if they are on equal footing compounds the gall.” The “privilege embedded in Sandmann’s responses” was an audible reflection of what his smirk represented to many—especially to those who are not white, straight, and male—a “world of hurt.”
Sandmann sued CNN and The Washington Post for defamation and reportedly settled for hundreds of millions.
He wasn’t the only one facing criticism for his expression. Newly installed Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson’s “poker face” during President Biden’s last State of the Union address was labeled one of the “worst” by New York Times analyst Rebecca Davis O’Brien. She noted, “His eyebrows arched and fell. He pursed his lips,” commenting that he seemed uncertain whether to stand, smile, or frown.
And then, “He smirked.” And “sort of rolled his eyes,” “looked down,” “sighed,” “shook his head,” “swallowed,” and “looked amused and patient.”
Johnson was criticized for his facial expressions, which “presidential historian” Douglas Brinkley speculated he may have practiced in front of a mirror. In contrast, “Vice President Kamala Harris managed to appear both relaxed and disciplined, her expressions consistently aligned with her message.” Johnson’s demeanor might have been influenced by Biden’s refusal to let him deliver the ceremonial introduction, along with Biden’s repeated criticisms of his “predecessor,” Trump.
Back in 2020, during President Trump’s State of the Union, Nancy Pelosi, dressed in white like her suffragette predecessors, provided a significant distraction by performing facial theatrics—lip-moistening, mouth-smacking, tongue-rolling, and side glances—while pretending to read, as if verifying the dubious claims Trump was making. This performance was noted for alternating between a sarcastic clap and an unwavering scowl. In a dramatic finish, she stood up and tore his printed remarks in half, akin to a dissatisfied customer rejecting a bill.
Kamala Harris employed a similar routine, albeit in a “cute” manner, during her debate with Trump. At one point, she rested her chin on her hand, lips pressed together, as if to suggest that little Donny was trying to deceive her about stealing cookies.
As Miranda Devine pointed out, these “nasty” facial expressions were intended to create viral “Brat Girl” moments on social media. The New York Times viewed such moments as effective “weapons” that amplified her message.
However, there were no “Brat Girl” moments for Donald Trump at the Republican convention. Sean McCreesh noted with some satisfaction that there was “no mischievous smirk, practiced scowl, shimmying to the Village People, or any other typical Trump performance.” Just days after a bullet grazed his ear, he appeared more subdued, wearing a white bandage. McCreesh seemed okay with this change in demeanor, suggesting it was a necessary consequence.
Today, merely being mindful of microaggressions and harmful language seems insufficient, nor is it enough to combat “misinformation.” When someone like Vance behaves in a gentlemanly manner, the stakes must be raised.
“How dare you even breathe in the air that we breathe on this planet!” we can hear Dowd screeching at the charming Vance on TV.
She had to give Tim Walz some credit. After “nearly 90 minutes of being lulled by Vance’s sham persona,” Walz “ripped” off the mask by directly addressing his claims about the irregularities in the 2020 election—now termed election “denialism.” He did this with a look of bewilderment and fear.
This is the only type of facial expression deemed acceptable by Ms. Dowd and her allies, who, shaking their index fingers at unsuspecting boys, demand, “Wipe that smirk off your face!”
