EVA - a politically necessary evil?

There is discussion of space suits starting on the long-running Three
R's thread, but I thought I'd carve it out as a separate topic.

Is EVA both necessary to national space programs for its compelling
image value, *and* a drag on efficient orbital activity compared to
non-EVA construction/repair approaches?

Nothing quite says "humans in space" like the image of a space-suited
astronaut, actually out there, floating. Perhaps the fact that you
can't see faces or clear outlines of physique actually helps people
project themselves into the image. (The umbilical cord was a nice
symbolic touch, while it was still necessary, but it had to be
dispensed with, to facilitate of greater range.) The sense of
autonomy seems to be important. I've seen pictures of EVA with the
astronaut being maneuvered with CanadArm, and it looks faintly
ridiculous -- it seems to say, "I'm just a puppet, a pair of eyes and
hands, doing someone's bidding." The unattached astronaut might be
getting minute-to-minute detailed instructions, but it doesn't *look*
that way, and image is important.

The subjective experience might be quite different. Perhaps my view
is colored by the only extensive account of EVA I've read (in
Dragonfly, IIRC), but EVA sounds terrifying (at least initially),
strenuous, frustrating, and very uncomfortable. I sometimes wonder
what kind of answers you'd get if you asked astronauts whether they
wouldn't prefer to be inside, teleoperating external equipment, in
shirtsleeves, with munchies nearby, somewhat more congenial toilet
facilities than what passes for such in suits, able to take breaks and
maybe even quick naps without getting too nervous about the passage of
time.

The standard response is that robotics just don't cut it. But I'm not
talking about robotics here. I'm talking about force-feedback
teleoperation, probably with stereoptic visual feedback, probably CGI-
augmented where that helps productivity. Teleoperation that might
offer considerable improvements in dexterity, when you consider how
difficult it is to handle tools when wearing thick, pressurized
gloves. I've never gotten a satisfactory answer to the question: what
*can't* you do in space with teleoperation, that a human being *can*
do? (A human being out there can die, but I don't see that as much of
an advantage to the human being, even if the risk helps romanticize
the experience for the viewer.)

I'm forced to conclude that the only real reason teleoperation has not
been preferred is that it just doesn't have the same value as EVA for
compelling public interest and support. Seeing a faintly geeky crew
bobbing around, with faces slightly bloated by microgravity, in a
shirtsleeve environment, just doesn't have the same romantic appeal.

No Buck Rogers, No Bucks. No EVA, No Buck Rogers. Cheaper isn't
better, if it means the money dries up. So we keep doing it the
expensive, romantic way. What (if anything) am I missing?

-michael turner