Another Reason Why I Strongly Dislike Politics

There are a lot of reasons I don’t like politics.

There’s the fact that billions of dollars are spent on advertising and campaigning when they could be spent on actually fixing problems about which the candidates spending the money to air attack ads occasionally talk. And the fact that the next time even a middle-income candidate wins a national election will be the first.

There’s the fact that, to win elections, candidates disingenuously try to cast themselves as existing at the dead center of the political spectrum, regardless of their intentions once elected. And the fact that this is done often in response to the results of polling and surveys.

There’s the fact that candidates pander shamelessly to whichever group is in front of them, with full knowledge that they will probably not be caught by a lazy and complicit media. And that the aforementioned media regurgitates the same campaign-generated talking points, always looking for the next “sound bite” that can take the place of actual insightful analysis.

This is by no means an exhaustive list. I could do this forever. But I want to get to the what is currently the biggest reason I strong dislike politics:

The almost institutionalized blatant disregard for logic and reason.

Consider this:

You are a civics-minded citizen of a country where, in politics, there are two political parties. Every four years, each party has a primary to decide who they will nominate to run for the President of your country. You are a member of Party A.

Party A has had only one man elected to the Presidency in the last 28 years (this spans 7 elections). He was profoundly intellectual and smart as a whip, but could relate to people of all walks of life. Beloved by young people (typically the hardest to inspire to have an opinion in these matters) and embraced by members of a diverse array of races and ethnicities, he was a captivating speaker whose oratory was often its own story. Eminently personable and likable, he nevertheless managed to campaign shrewdly, always making sure that the terms of the contest were defined by him and not his opponent (Party B was and is exceptionally good at defining the terms of the race). And in a country where personal faith is always a political issue, he succeeded in the almost impossible task of marrying liberal social positions to support from the faith community.

Every other candidate who has run in that span has generally failed for reasons which, in retrospect, should probably have been obvious. Too stiff. Too phony. Too elitist. Too arrogant. Too aloof. And they have all failed to dictate the terms of the campaign, instead fighting losing battles where the issues and their context were defined by their opponents.

It is primary time for your Party. There are two candidates whose policy positions are roughly the same on all the issues of note, however:

One candidate is a Senator from a large state whose citizens generally vote for candidates from Party A. While she is incredibly knowledgeable about the issues and has tremendous experience in government, years of corruption, cronyism, and partisan politics have left your country longing for a change from politics as usual–a brand of politics many associate her with intimately. Often a stiff speaker, this candidate has the backing of most of Party A’s establishment because of her longstanding ties to said establishment, but has trouble inspiring younger voters, moderate voters, and independents, all of whose votes will be required to win a general election.

In addition, this candidate has had unfavorable ratings that have peaked as high as the mid-40s since her entrance into the public arena (which happened over 15 years ago). In fact, a decision by Party A to nominate her would likely be the only thing that could unite Party B behind their own generally lackluster, uninspiring nominee (who is even disliked by many factions of his own party), simply because the entirety of Party B finds this candidate to be, possibly, the most distasteful member of their country.
Should she be nominated, Party B will have a field day turning the context of the campaign to issues that have nothing at all to do with her ability to lead the country, and her credentials will be lost amid what will likely be a dirty, excessively partisan campaign–a campaign which will alienate moderates and independents, who should be Party A’s natural allies.

The other possible candidate Party A could nominate is also a Senator from a large state whose citizens normally vote for candidates from Party A. While he is young and relatively new to the national political arena, he displays an alacrity with the issues that belies his comparative inexperience. A speaker who at his worst is compelling and at his best is inspiring, he has shown an almost unprecedented ability to bring together economically, educationally, racially, and even politically diverse groups of people, a refreshing change from the politics as usual decried by the electorate. While he has not generally been the choice of Party A’s establishment, he has racked up impressive primary wins in states not generally won by Party A’s candidates in the general election by virtue of melding support from moderates, young people, and a tremendous grassroots movement with support from traditional factions of Party A.

While his inexperience will be attacked by members of Party B and their candidate in a general election, he has tremendous success defining the terms of his campaign and the context of the election. He has turned what is inarguably his greatest strength–his ability to inspire and tap into a growing desire in many members of his country for change–into one of the defining issues of the campaign. And while Party B dislikes him on principle because of his affiliation with Party A, he engenders none of the vitriol his primary opponent does in Party B.

So… which one would you vote to nominate?

———

I obviously don’t need to tell you that Party A is the Democratic Party, that Party B is the Republican Party, that the first candidate is Hillary Clinton, the second is Barack Obama, and that the presumptive Republican nominee is John McCain. I took their names out, however, in an effort to show just how stark the choice really is between Clinton and Obama for the Democrats.

They are similar candidates on the issues; they have mostly the same beliefs and have much in common with Democratic voters. But Hillary is, possibly even more than her husband, the most hated political figure in America today to members of the Republican party.

Even the primaries they’ve won should be instructive. Hillary has won states like Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey. Who cares? Regardless of whether Hillary of Obama ends up being the nominee, a Democrat is going to win those states in the general election. Obama, on the other hand, has won states like Alabama, South Carolina, and Georgia–states that normally vote for Republicans in general elections– where his broad appeal would give him a chance against McCain that Hillary won’t have. This is especially true with McCain, a candidate unlikely to appeal to the very conservative voters who normally comprise the Republican power base in those states, as the opponent.

In the last two elections, the brilliant Republican strategy has been to a) define the race on terms favorable to George Bush (i.e. turning Al Gore’s and John Kerry’s experience into negatives and turning Bush’s dogmatic obstinacy into a positive), and b) shore up support in the states that normally vote for Republican nominees while putting the Democratic nominee on the defensive in states that normally vote for Democrats. In the last week of the 2004 election, John Kerry was campaigning in Michigan (MICHIGAN… you know… auto makers and unions, socially liberal, big urban areas) because he was worried he might lose it.

Republicans don’t even like McCain. While nominating Hillary will unite his party behind him, nominating Barack will put even deep red states in play, possibly setting the stage for an electoral college landslide the likes of which has not been seen in years. And in the most recent polls run, Barack runs 7 points stronger than Hillary against McCain. 7 points, by the way, is a huge margin. And yet, despite all of that, Hillary, with the support of the party establishment and the superdelegates who will almost certainly decide the nomination, will probably be the nominee of the Democratic party:

In pre-Super Tuesday polling, Clinton leads Obama by 6 points when Democrats are forced to make a choice between the co-frontrunners. But Clinton ties McCain in a hypothetical head-to-head matchup, while Obama bests him by 7 points.

Seriously. This is the most illogical thing I’ve ever seen. Even if you’re a Hillary supporter, can you really say that she’s so much better than Barack that it’s worth the unconscionably larger risk that she loses in the general election?

By nominating Hillary, the Democratic Party would basically be saying, “hey, logic and reason… fuck off.” So, of course… that’s exactly what they’re going to do.

And that’s the biggest reason I hate politics today.

Advertisement