Posted on 01/30/2004 9:32:15 AM PST by Cathryn Crawford
We Deserve More Than Electability
Every year, there is a word or phrase that is repeated over and over until you can’t stand to hear it anymore. In 1999, it was ‘millennium’. In 2000, it was 'chad'. There are scads more: 'yellow cake', 'Shock and awe', the ever popular 'embedded'. And now, in 2004, we have 'electability'.
It’s the word on everyone’s lips. When you hear John Kerry and Howard Dean and John Edwards and Wesley Clark on the campaign trail, the one point that they’re attempting to pound into people’s heads is their electability. They never explain what electability is; they simply want the voters to somehow look at them and say, “I’ve seen the light. That man is electable!”
Of course, the electability factor isn’t new to politics; the issue was a hot button just a few months ago in the California recall election. Many conservatives agonized over the choice between Tom McClintock, a conservative Republican, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican whose leaning often fell further to the left than what some conservatives found comfortable. California Republicans struggled over McClintock’s ability to beat Democrat Cruz Bustamante.
Now, campaign strategists are running themselves ragged trying to have their candidate be all things to all people – a chameleon that changes his mind and views as quickly as the people step up in the line to shake his hand. In this race, Democrats are looking for someone that can beat a popular incumbent – the anti-Bush. They want someone with charm and eloquence; the Southern good-old-boy with Northeastern appeal. Electability is talked about in this race as some magical mixture of zeal, energy, appeal, and attractiveness. Electability wants a manly man; a man that isn’t too volatile, too boyish, or too elite. Electability pays attention to the smallest of details - the color of a candidate’s tie or what he eats for dinner.
Obviously, electability is different things for different people. Before the New Hampshire primaries, I saw an amusing photo on a news website that captured John Kerry performing jumping jacks before two delighted 18 year olds. The caption explained that the two college students had agreed to vote for John Kerry if he would do the exercises in front of them. For them, an ability to do jumping jacks was the factor for Kerry’s electability.
Do people really decide who to vote for based on such simple things? It’s hard to believe, but it’s probably true that Al Gore did pick up a few votes when he rammed his tongue down Tipper’s throat in 2000. And yet, some voters (on both sides) have trouble believing that a good haircut or even an ability to be eloquent in public speaking is really what matters when choosing a candidate.
Inevitably when I discuss the issue of principles and integrity over electability, people say that pragmatism must always come first. The only question for some voters is the question of winning. Never mind that the person that wins isn’t someone you’d trust with your dog, much less your country – he’s running on your ticket and you want to win. It’s an understandable viewpoint and Republicans are as guilty of this as the Democrats. But the Democrats are the ones making the huge mistake this year - one that will cost them in the long run. Electability (whatever it may be) isn’t the real issue. The Democratic nominee is going to have to prove that his ideas are better than President Bush’s, and that he has the wherewithal to carry his ideas into reality. By focusing on themselves, on their suits and ties and food and drinks and the backdrop that they stand in front of, they’re showing the nation that their message has no depth beyond those factors.
Cathryn Crawford is a student at the University of Texas. To contact her, drop her a line at cathryncrawford@yahoo.com.
I get the impression she's talking about Dean, Edwards and Kerry (in that order).
I think many do, Cathryn. I think that a lot of folks want most of all to just feel comfortable with a candidate.
Great column, Cathryn. As usual, you've put your finger on what seems to be one of the big questions of the year - electability. ;-)
ALL of these people, and millions like them, have a vote which counts just as much as ours do. Candidates and parties have to take these nitwits into account when forming their campaigns, or they run the risk of losing to someone more astute in marketing himself.
Do I wish everyone cared about the issues? Of course. But the sad truth is that a large proportion of the electorate vote for candidates for foolish reasons. This is why Nixon went on "Laugh-In," Clinton played the sax on Arsenio, and Bush and Gore appeared on Oprah. It can't be helped, but is just the nature of politics.
How could you forget "gravitas"
Good article CC.
Now what made you think that???
Actually, the sad part is that Jon Stewart can be hilarious. I know several young conservatives who watch him on a pretty regular basis - because he's funny.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.