The cooler of two evils...

While pundits argue about whether or not the Democrats will finally reclaim control of Congress in November it seems evident to me that hardly anyone understands the dynamics behind why the party is stranded in uncertainty in the first place. Why is it that this is the first time in twelve years that the Democrats have a chance worth mentioning? Why does it seem to be such a slight chance? Why have the Democrats failed to put one of their own in the White House during the last two presidential elections? And why are conservative radio talk shows still more lucrative than liberal ones?

Please allow me to answer these questions by way of analogy.

Imagine you’re in high school during elections for student body president. There are only two candidates that you may choose from. One is the captain of the football team – “Jock” – and the other is the captain of the chess team – “Nerd”. In truth, you don’t like either one of these guys (and, yes, they’re both guys) because Jock is an arrogant ass and Nerd is… well, an arrogant ass. The former thrives on athletic performance, the latter on academic prestige. Who gets your vote?

Here are the reasons that Jock will win every time:

A) Jock’s accomplishments on the football field are both more dramatic and more objective than Nerd’s accomplishments in the classroom. Therefore, Jock’s arrogance seems more legitimate.
B) Related to (A), Jock’s shortcomings in character seem more forgivable than those of Nerd.
C) Putting (A) and (B) together, one can relate to Jock and his experiences much more easily than one can relate to Nerd and his experiences.
D) When Nerd challenges Jock, he does so intellectually, which only serves to alienate those who feel they are in the same academic boat as Jock (which turns out to be the majority of voters). Attacks that employ highbrow satire are disastrous. So Nerd loses political debates by winning them.
E) If given the choice of what kind of achiever one might be, the majority of people will always choose to be a great athlete rather than a great academic.
F) And in the end, exceptional intelligence is not a quality one looks for in a candidate who is meant to represent one. The thing a voter wants a candidate to understand is this: “If you are going to represent me, you have to be like me.”

Naturally, Republicans emulate “Jock” and Democrats emulate “Nerd”.

Republicans are commonly associated with financial success, an “objective” quality deeply valued in American culture much like success on the gridiron is. Democrats, however, are commonly viewed as the condescending know-it-alls who couldn’t possibly understand the perspectives of the common man. Of course, the Republicans don’t understand the common man either, but when your only choices are both disconnected you might as well go with the one you can most relate to and admire. And, ultimately, what the Republicans are popularly perceived to stand for (money and security) seems quite a bit more concrete than what the Democrats are perceived to stand for (justice and liberty).

I’m going to give away the solution to this conundrum because I think it’s so obvious: a candidate must connect with voters via emotion. “We may have different backgrounds and experiences,” the candidate needs to say, “but on an emotional level you and I are the same.” History is rife with successful politicians who owed all of their accomplishments, for fame OR infamy, to understanding this one supreme principle. It is the one thing that Republicans have for many years done better than Democrats. (Except for Bill Clinton, but I never thought he was that great at it either.)

Now, I suppose all of this may seem like advice aimed at helping Democrats, but make no mistake; it doesn’t matter to me what the Democrats or Republicans do.

I always voted “Band Kid”.