I've always disliked Cults of Personality. Overly-devoted followers of people in any field are a turn-off. Case in point: Pop music's never had more brilliant songwriters than the Beatles, but "O-Bla-Di-O-Bla-Da" still gets on my nerves. Nobody's perfect. Tonight's debate was a great reminder that, when it comes to politicians, it's better to view them as potential partners than as heroes.
A Cult of Personality makes people stop thinking for themselves. And this Democratic primary season's been obsessed with personality. That's partially because of the historical nature of the competition, but it's also the product of identity-driven politics and a party that's stinging from seven years of stigmatization. There's no more powerful leader on Earth than the firefighter in a burning building who knows the way out. When it's not obvious where that person is, people begin projecting her or him onto the nearest available figure.
The Cults of Personality are also prospering because the media have, in their typical frenzied way, driven a personality narrative at the expense of the issues. But why should Democrats play into that? Why can't people be passionate about politics instead of politicians? Why can't the voter/candidate relationship be one between equals, where the citizen gives the candidate her or his support in return for a promise to represent them to the best of their ability?
I've got a vote coming up myself. I weigh five factors when voting, especially at the Presidential level: First, what are their policy positions? Second, who are the people they will they bring in to lead the nation? Third, what social forces will be set in effect by their election? Fourth, will their election help promote the kinds of ideas and principles I support? And fifth, what how strong is their character? All of these factors have to be weighed and balanced against one another, while considering the obvious tactical questions: Do they have a chance of winning the nomination? Who'll perform the best in the general election?
I've been critical of each Democratic candidate, and Hillary Clinton most frequently of all. That's not, as Clinton supporters usually seem to think, because I'm "in the pocket" of another candidate. If anything, it's because I naively accepted the Clinton campaign's own spin that she was the de facto front-runner. And I felt the Clintons failed to use their power and prestige to halt the onslaught of war. But I've criticized all of the candidates. None of that criticism has been that of a "hater" or an "enemy." Those terms are just the inversion of the Cult of Personality. I consider all four Democratic candidates human beings. No more, no less. Gifted, but flawed, human beings.
I have deep objections to Clinton's inner circle and her strategy, but she has some terrific people on her team and she's been through the fire. I'm excited about Obama, but I'd like to see him fight more for green jobs and refrain from tampering with Social Security. As for Edwards - his policy positions, as he articulates them now, are closest to my own. But I'm still a little uncomfortable with his candidacy, because he had not yet explained how he could support so many important issues in the Senate and then be so passionately opposed to them now. And the 'haircut' issue, while it was a real media mugging, could have been handled much better. Like it or not, a Democratic candidate facing this media has to know how to duck a punch.
That said, Edwards had the best night of his campaign tonight. He had the advantage of not being in anyone else's sights, but it was more than that: He kept the discussion on higher ground. His rhetoric was inspired. I welcome his participation in this campaign. Obama did very well too, especially given the siege he was under. But each of our already-formed impressions of the candidates affects the way we see these debates.
For their supporters, Hillary was a gusty firebrand tonight while Obama was eloquent and Edwards spoke truth to power. Their opponents had very different impressions. I'm trying to take a step back from any of those perceptions to ask myself: Which of these leaders has the best chance of carrying my message to the country, of turning my values and aspirations into reality?
I'll also be looking to see what each of these candidates brings out in their followers. Every advocate for a candidate, whether in public or private, tells us something about the forces that candidate is bringing forth. (Talk to any randomly-selected Bush supporter,if you don't believe me.) We can all disagree, and I've been as imperfect as anyone in stating my opinions. But insularity, defensiveness, and hyper-aggression don't advance any candidate's cause.
I had been leaning toward Edwards until a few weeks ago, when I began gravitating toward Obama. But whomever I choose on Super Tuesday will no doubt disappoint me sometimes, because they're only human. I'm guessing that the person you choose will disappoint you, too - unless you're so blinded by admiration that you stop paying attention.
That would be a shame, even if your favorite Beatles song is "O-Bla-Di-O-Bla-Da."