* * *
I come from a family of political animals. Both of my grandpas are passionate Reagan-hating liberals, peculiar for middle class white men from rural towns surrounding Saint Louis, and they make sure everyone related to them felt the same way. I certainly do.But even though most of my family members are Democratic partisans, they can't really explain why. That's not necessarily wrong, and surely not uncommon in America, where politics is too upsetting a subject to dwell on - but it is harmful. Mix in media narratives and the apolitical animal is easily misled.
My mom wants Mitt Romney's DNA checked. She swears he's too robotic to be a real person, and that that's the reason she can't vote for him. It's a complaint that's common (and also true I suspect). But is it really valid? Can the President of the United States, the Leader of the Free World, the man with the biggest job of any human that's ever walked the earth, be a normal guy (or gal)? And, more importantly, why would we want him to be normal?
Since the arrival of blowhards like Bill O'Reilly and Chris Matthews on cable TV, we've heard that presidential candidates have to connect with the common man. Go out, shake hands, hold babies, touch, feel America's pain.
You gotta have empathy. It's why Ronald Reagan will be on the $10 bill some day, why Bill Clinton is held up as a model politician, why a decent dude like John Kerry could never be President but a scumbag like John Edwards could lead the polls. Because the average American, after all, not only doesn't understand politics, he also doesn't want to. He isn't seen as an intellectual being but as an instinctual soul, a stupid "Joe the Plumber," only desiring someone who can understand his feelings if not fix his problems. It's a pernicious prophecy, propagated by everyone from Rush to Dr. Phil, and it's turned out to be self-fulfilling.
All the talk about connecting with the common man seems grossly misplaced, considering the President actually deals with other hardly-human politicians and lunatic dictators and media fiends and especially billionaire businessmen. The presidency is an uncommon job that forces its holder to do uncommon things and cooperate with uncommon people. So why should a common man hold it?
I won't ever get to have a beer with the president, so why should I use that as a litmus test to choose who gets my vote? Do I really want people like my friends in the Oval Office? Do I want Ricky, who would shun speeches and interviews in favor of animated gif propaganda? Do I want Amanda, who would make Russian our official language and generally behave like some horrid combination of Margaret Thatcher and Imelda Marcos? Do I want Mr. Strong, who wants to TAKE ALL THE OIL AND NUKE THE FUCK OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST?*
Or do I want my president to be a Harvard graduate, calm and cool in the face of overwhelming pressure, experienced in wheeling and dealing with the weirdos who control our fucked world, an exceptional man fit for an exceptional job?
I won't vote for Mitt Romney in November, but not because he doesn't appeal to my emotions. I'll vote against him because of his pledge to repeal health care reform, his proposal to let the auto industry go bankrupt, his opposition to gay marriage, and his shitty rendition of the Baha Men classic "Who Let the Dogs Out?"
My mom won't vote for Mitt Romney because she doesn't like his wooden posture, slicked-back hair, flat voice tone, awkward mannerisms. Sure, she cares about the things I do too, but she doesn't understand them because the commentators she watches ignore them in favor of cheap, diversionary gossip. And as long as this continues, as long as politics prizes personality over policy, we further lose track of what really matters and lose hope of ever making things better.
*Actually, yes. I would definitely vote for all three of these people.
No comments:
Post a Comment