Orange pulp
Americans love a good narrative. Yet, what they seem to love even more than that is an artfully constructed, though not necessarily true, fairy tale, a contemporary myth in which a young hero sets out on an impossible quest to prove his self-worth and carve his place in history. Contemporary American politics is full of such tales, from the boy from Hope who stood up to his abusive stepfather to protect his mother from another drunken evening of devastating punches and painful bruises to the boy from Connecticut who moved to Texas and gave up binge drinking so he might straighten up and fly right with the Lord and Poppy Bush.
These stories resonated with voters because we so strongly empathize with this strangely familiar narrative in our own lives. We elected Clinton and Bush because we bought their convincing narratives, we believed they conquered their respective dragons even if we found out the contrary was true later.
Then, why so serious this time around?
These are dark times for Americans (the economy and a couple wars come to mind) and the recent record-shattering success of “The Dark Knight” suggests we are aware of this national nightmare even in our entertainment. Director Christopher Nolan’s Gotham City seeks redemption from its plunge into the nightmarish abyss in “Batman Begins,” but nothing is scarier than his cleaned up version of a metropolis where corruption exists just beneath the surface, ready to burst free into the light or delve deeper into the postmodern void of chaos and disorder. The arrival of the Joker, a force of chaos and destruction suggests the latter.
Certainly we are ready to turn the page on the previous eight years, and Americans overwhelmingly support the generic Democrat over the generic Republican in poll after poll.
Yet, when it’s Obama versus McCain, Americans seem less certain of either man, unsure whether to trust their promises of postpartisan politics. Perhaps it’s because neither man fits the narratives of earlier presidential candidates.
Millions of Americans like Obama’s eloquent rhetoric and his beautiful words, while others find him too academic, too professorial, too ethereal. Reagan Democrats remain suspicious, skeptical and other adjectives that essentially amount to the same thing: He is not as we.
McCain faces a similar predicament, seeking to consolidate his Republican base. Does he really intend to appoint pro-life judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, or did those shots with Mrs. Clinton years ago mean he is really a Democrat in Republican clothing?
2008’s vice presidential picks might offer undecided voters a window into the inner workings of these two mythologized mavericks. Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton offer Mr. Obama the White House (Mrs. Clinton has defeated several dragons in pursuit of the Oval Office from the vast Right Wing Conspiracy to that childhood moment she was told that being a woman prevented her from joining NASA. Call it Two-For-the-Price-of-One, Ver. 2.0). McCain treads a trickier path full of pro-choice dragons (Mr. Ridge) and flip-flopping robots (Romney). Next week, the American people are about to watch yet another all-American myth unfold as these two men set out on the most unusual and oddly familiar political quest in some time.
The darkest night is just before the dawn.
Loading ...
All Articles
I wouldn’t say Americans “overwhelmingly” support a generic Democrat over a Republican–in the most recent polls, Obama and McCain are pretty close, with McCain gaining some ground recently.
Justin, perhaps you should investigate the meaning of generic.
In any case, this is common in a lot of decisions. People tend to become less and less committed as the parameters of a decision become more specific.
What is interesting about this race is that how political assumptions come into play. In most presidential elections, the winner is the candidate who can get the closest to the middle. Extremists rarely win (See: Mondale, Walter). Obama has tried to do this by remaining relatively non-committal on any “hot” political issue (See: Abortion). However, because he is a black anti-war Democrat that talks about hope and change, I would guess that a lot of voters fail to perceive any moderation in his policy stances.
So naturally, one would expect that McCain would tout the small semblance of success in Iraq and then stick to his moderate guns on the rest of the issues and he could pull off the win fairly easily. Instead, he attached himself firmly to President Bush and a number of conservative policies he had previously opposed and thus has removed any perception of moderation.
This is why people seem torn. They want a candidate to meet them in the middle. Until one of them does, the polling data for this election (and the result itself) will maintain a lack of stability.
Perhaps I was misunderstanding his use of the term generic. But in the context of the column, I thought he was saying that Americans overwhelmingly support a “generic” Democrat for President. Leaving aside the fact that there are no generic Democrats running for President, and also leaving aside the fact that I am ignorant of poll data that specifically asks people if they prefer a generic Demcorat or Republican for President, it’s still the case that as of now the non-generic contenders are practically tied in the polls.
I think you’re right about the importance of being in the middle, but this would seem to be more true of Democrats than Republicans. No non-southern Democrat has become President since Kennedy. One of the reasons is that Americans become more conservative when voting for President, and southern Democrats have been seen by voters as more culturally conservative. It seems to be much more crucial that Democrat candidates move toward the middle–pro-life Republican contenders have not had any difficulty winning Presidential elections, for example. Nor have Republican Presidential candidates been forced to prove their centrist credentials.