> There is an interesting essay in the Aug. 30 _New Yorker_, Louis
> Menand,
> "The Unpolitical Animal: How political science understands voters." I'm
> not sure if I have any particular response to it myself, but it does at
> least suggest that the kind of political analysis and debate that
> occurs
> on this list (or in the NYT for that matter) does not have much
> relevance to elections. The thrust of the article, as I understand it
> from a casual skim, is that voters do not have the remotest idea of
> what
> it is they are voting for or against. I'd be interested in comments
> from
> others either on Menand's article or on the books it references.
I read that piece, and was pretty persuaded by it. In fact, I was intending to bring the list's attention to it myself, and I'm glad you did. Everyone should read it.
He makes a good case that the basic assumption of most political junkies -- that the average citizen cares about "issues" and bases her/his vote on them -- is wrong. It is high time that we PJs realize that most people in fact vote on their gut senses of what kinds of persons the candidates are. If this were not so, there is no way in hell that Bush would be even with Kerry in the horse race. The working class is far larger in numbers than the owning class, and any worker who has her/his head on straight should be able to see in a minute or two that Bush and his crew are fundamentally opposed to the health and welfare of their class.
OTOH, you will say, so is Kerry and his crew. True enough. But why has the DP as a whole gotten so far away from its quasi-socialist past? (There was a point to the merciless Republic denunciation of Democrats as "socialists" in the 30s and 40s, though it was somewhat exaggerated.) Because the myth of the cowboy (see Anne Deavere Smith's Op-Ed piece in today's NY Times), so perfectly acted out by Reagan and George II (not his dad), the lone defender of the truth and right on the perilous frontier, touches such a deep chord in the national soul that it practically renders all discussion of "issues" on an intellectual level irrelevant.
If the left is ever going to get real political power it will have to stop messing around with the intellectual types and the lawyer consumer advocate types which we love so much and find a leftie Lone Ranger as a symbol. Sorry, but that's the name of the game, pard'ner.
What puts the Democrats out of the running in this game is that the way you work your way up to the top in that party, up to now at least, is by going to law school and having a career in which you demonstrate your brilliant grasp of the "issues." To the lawyers who may be reading this, I must say that I actually have nothing against that profession in general -- there are many occasions when someone without a good lawyer at her or his side is sunk, and I appreciate their work -- but a successful candidate, lawyer or not, will have to be able to project that gunslinger image. Get a horse and ranch and clear some brush, is my advice.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ When I was a little boy, I had but a little wit, 'Tis a long time ago, and I have no more yet; Nor ever ever shall, until that I die, For the longer I live the more fool am I. -- Wit and Mirth, an Antidote against Melancholy (1684)