So, after a year of grueling nonsense, the Democratic Primary is finally nearing to a close. I’m not sure exactly where the candidates shifted political positions, but what was once the inevitable Hillary Clinton ticket has now become the “Obama for change” nomination. Before I go on, let’s admit something to ourselves: this primary has not been about the issues.
True, there have been a sizeable amount of us today that have actually researched the standings of each political candidate on each issue, and from that point made an educated decision about the candidate we were going to choose. But unfortunately, that “sizeable amount” hasn’t been much in comparison to the millions who have decided the primary based on the “change” versus “experience” factor. I will refrain from making a long and inevitably unheeded tirade about how Hillary and Obama both have about the same amount of political experience and that Obama has never advocated any plan in the Senate labeling his supposed “change”. Instead I will go eat some ice cream and wile away this terrible habit of thinking with 500 calories and 30 grams of saturated fat (50 grams of fat overall).
HOWEVER (40 minutes later)
After a bit of sugar-inspired research, I found that though the “change” versus “experience” factor might be the ostensible reason for the vast majority votes, the actual, more substantial, reason that people have marked their candidates is because of their general demeanor. Now some of you might believe this is even worse than before, that you can’t choose a candidate based on how they look or how they talk, but is this really true?
Why don’t we take a look back at what “educated” people do when voting for an election: we look at the issues and we research each candidate’s position on them, and, based on those issues which are most important to us, we select a candidate. What is the underlying assumption here? That the candidate will follow the precedent of his previous decisions and continue with his nomination platform, regardless of shifting times and situations, throughout his presidency. In the last 25 years how correct was this assumption you wonder. The answer is never (unless you would like to include the presidential election of 2004 in which no substantially differing issues were brought up), so with that track record in mind, how much worse can a different perspective on voting get?
The answer is not much at all. While we might not have any foolproof methods for deciding a president, this is where observing a candidate’s demeanor, observing the “non-issues”, tell us a bit. First off let’s look at Barack Obama: he’s tall, he’s poised, he has an ass-whupping powerful voice, and he seems like an overall nice guy. Hillary Clinton, no offense to her or anything, but comes off slightly differently: she wears heavy coat of make-up, she at times appears flustered and randomly emotional, she has a voice nearing screech-status, and she overall seems like a not-as-nice (to put it mildly) of a person. These judgements obviously can’t totally explain the candidates but look at the track record:
George W. Bush Jr. – He appeared, right from the start, as the perfect example of one of those nice neighbors next door – well kept lawn, good kids, good values, but obviously a bit slow considering his Christmas lights were on all throughout the year. So what did we get: a slightly stupid yet morally-upright president.
Bill Clinton –A handsome guy with a powerful voice tinted with a southern drawl: a player right off the bat. And again, what did we get: a man who saw the economy as well as his sex life rise to new heights.
I can’t really go on with my list considering I haven’t been alive long enough to remember many presidents so hopefully the rest of you can fill in the holes, but with any luck you all can see that judging someone’s presidency based on his demeanor has actually been quite accurate. Of course I don’t think we should completely abondon a candidate’s platform; most candidates follow some semblance of their politcal platform once they are in office – just not a lot. For the general election, usually aligning oneself with the political party is good enough because generally the candidates do follow the policies their party has dictated (thus the reason they are members of that party). Remember presidents don’t write the laws, they only sign them in, so unless you have a bill that is completely against the political position of a candidate and/or his party, you are generally safe of veto bombardment.
However, the political primaries are muddier because the candidates are all part of the same party – the debate is essentially more a quarrel over rhetoric than actual policies. Considering that minor policy differences (or rhetoric) rarely materialize once in presidency, how does one choose his/her candidate? First, consider which candidate actually has the best chance of winning (seriously, voting for candidates that are almost definitely going to lose is way overrated). When you have a couple candidates roughly equal in that regard, as in this case, you then look at the “non-issues”. If you really can’t make up your mind after that (which is also easily possible in this case – a bitchy president equates to a world trembling in fear by the way) then I would suggest not voting at all. Seriously, political primaries are not as important as the general election and if you do not feel strongly for any candidate, then I personally feel that you shouldn’t be obligated to vote at all. Maybe it’s different for the general election, but for political primaries take it easy if it’s difficult to make up your mind.
