I haven't read her book, probably will, just basing this on her talk. I suspect that her definition of glamour is more focused on the reception as glamour, and not the process of how that occurs. As something passively received, not actively projected.
Well, I wish. I mean, I wish that was what glamour was; a self-valued resonance to some personal attractor, pulled from some palette of neutral, passive candidates, visions of glamour from a neutral, agenda free Library of Glamour..
In her view, charisma is an attribute of a person, whereas glamour is simply the response -- to anything, not necessarily a person -- by someone to a vision or idea presented to them. Her claim is, one can have charisma, but can't decide to be glamourous; only others bestow that reaction on anybody or thing. So... there is no glamour industry targeting exactly that reaction in others?
I'd wish, for example, that Hollywood was an agenda free neutral engine of romantic visions from which we all choose to be inspired. I think it actually largely succeeds at that, even with the odd agendas thrown about, and even with a systemic bias to those agendas. So maybe close enough.
As well, is the glamour industry of Madison Ave really a threat to freedom, or is it a manifestation of freedom? A line has been drawn at subliminal messaging, and so, at least it can be said that we are on our own when deciding that Dove soap is the only way to capture that once glow of youthful radiance. But clearly(to me)the projection of glamour is a studied art/science; an even manufactured art. (It is one thing to seek out glamourous images, persist the images, and use them. It is another thing to take reality and then airbrush it by design into an un-achievable perfection and represent what you are offering as a path to that unreality. That is, at the very least, a kind of fraud. Stealing. A false offering of fake value for real value.)
So then, what of the short drive from K-Street to Madison Ave? Is it really a threat to freedom that a well oiled Obama in perpetual modern campaign mode projects a manufactured glamour reaction, not simply by passive happenstance and what others bring to their reaction, but by a cultivated, deliberate act? Isn't that a far more dangerous fraud in the pursuit of what some want from others than selling Dove soap?
Is caving to that sad political fact just RealPolitik? Better emotive clowns are needed to sell political soap, and so, as we fringe few ponder the failures to broadly engage these ideas, should we all join in an effort to provide more palatable clowns for the existing circus, and enter the fray to strive to be the most beloved clown?
I can believe that it isn't possible for an individual to without fail trigger a glamour reaction in a particular individual, but that isn't the goal either of Hollywood, Madison Ave, or even politicians in a democracy. Their goals are not based on individual reactions, but on 'enough' individual reactions, no matter who individually has those reactions.
The politics is rigged, I think, by a Universe that runs mainly downhill. In the end, no matter how you dress it up, it is easier to run downhill than uphill. That is strike one. Strike two is, it is apparently pretty easy to convince folks that they should want to run downhill, as their goal. The reason is, see reason one. Strike three is, if the game is democratically winnable only by the strength of collectivist numbers, than paradigms inherently based on fissiles will struggle against paradigms based on fusiles.
Libertarians, I think, are entering a game with three strikes on them before they even take a pitch. It is a kind of a paradox-- I call it the Paradox of Freedom -- that a nation must be won by convincing others it is in their best interest to mob up to defend their right to be free from each other...except under a model of free vs. forced association. The challenge of libertarians, I think, is to simplity that message and make it palatable. Any paradigm with 'except' in its explanation is going to lose 80% of the electorate. By comparison, "It's the economy, stupid!" -- although highly effective, was taking a huge risk by including that comma.