This Debate's a Reminder: Support Politics, Not Politicians

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."

A Night Light
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog
Future-While-U-Wait
RJ Eskow at the Huffington Post

Comments

[gloryoski]

Great column overall. A couple of caveats:

First, I too look for a partner in any candidate, not a savior or great leader. For that very reason, it rubs me the wrong way when I see a candidate who presents as if s/he would rather have me look for the latter (i.e, just trust them because they are the ones who know how things really work). This kind of attitude can affect my vote even if this person's policy proposals on paper are somewhat more to my liking than another person's. (It probably wouldn't if the proposals were far superior.)

Second, while I agree that blind antipathy to wards a candidate, especially when coupled with blind allegiance to another is just cult of personality turned on its head, informed (if intense) antipathy might have to do with other things. For example, you might realize a candidate is a human being but see him or her as VERY flawed. You might remember that it is not just your decision to pick your "partner" in a democracy (unlike in a relationship or a business). You might therefore bristle at especially egregiously manipulative attempts by the person you do not want as partner to try to get other people to force you to partner with them anyway. Antipathy might also increase based on certainty or near certainty that it is deserved; you may have been in a rocky partnership with this person before.

All these causes for informed antipathy go to factor number five, character. Plus, we're only human. As long as we remember that the reason why the emotions are important is the overweening effects factors 1-4 will have on our lives, and not because candidates are actually people in our lives, characters in a soap opera, whatever. Just sayin'...

[nitestik]

Did it ever occur to you that the "Haircut issue" is not an "overblown" thing, but rather not an "issue" at all?

O-Bla-Di, O-Blah, Blah, Blah.

[plutorage]

This post doesn't discuss what was actually happeining in the debate per se. Hilary wanted to unnerve Obama so he would lose his poise because she can see that, on issues, there is not a lot of daylight between them.

Obama should have been stressing "qualities" the electorate should be looking for in a candidate and give examples of Clinton's weakness without mentioning her by name. For example, if a person is willing to do anything to win, does that include sitting silently in a federal court while false evidence is presented, which the person knows is false? That may be a rough example but there are other similar ones Obama could make. He makes the point about Clintons' dishonesty but he does not do so with sufficient force and finality. If Hilary is willing to lie about her positions during the campaign, will she not do so when she is President and how will that affect her relationships with Joint chiefs, foreign heads of state, etc.

I don't think Hilary has the right temperament/character for President but Obama will have to make that case. He can't expect that others will do it for him. People like McCain and Hilary should be in the Senate where they are controlled by dint of the number of colleagues they have. Hilary asPresident looks risky to me.

[Querent]

Thank you for that commentary, RJ. You are pointing at the most important fact of all, much more important than any bullshit about present votes or haircuts, or even legitmate issues like healthcare and foreign policy. I still miss the cuss words and the humor, though.

[jackpinesavage]

This post is an excellent lesson in civics. So how come something like 75% percent of the comments use it mostly as a platform to tell us why their candidate is the right candidate?

I laugh at the Jehovah's Witnesses when the try to sell me Jesus, and i laugh at all of you when you try to sell me your candidate of choice. I don't care who you vote for, and you shouldn't care who i vote for. When we discuss politics, we should be discussing issues and ideas...not candidates.

And when push comes to shove, you're not trying to convince me what's right or good. You're trying to get me to go along with you because it will make you feel better about yourself if more people agree with you.

Have any of you (the ones who have know that i'm not talking to you) happened to realize that the bitter partisanship that has ripped this nation asunder has only spread its tentacles into the parties themselves? Is it not good enough to hate Republicans/conservatives anymore? Must we also hate other progressives/liberals/whatever name you want to call it too?

Personally, i'm fed up with the whole thing. By that i do not mean politics, as that's important to the future, but this narrative and the campaigning, and the petty little arguments, and the unfunny slurs, and the attacks should end. It won't, and that's why we're never going to get the leadership we need to right this nation and bestow a livable future on our children and our grand children.

[birdgal]

I agree, we Democrats especially need to focus on the platform and policies of the Democratic party embodied in varying degrees, in our candidates. All three candidates will support the nominee, we are one family. I have been very concerned with Obama supporters because I read all too frequently in the Huffpo comments that individual Obama supporters say they will vote republican if Obama is not our nominee.

This worries me enormously. Obama was at one time my favorite but I have come to see him differntly now and favor Edwards/Clinton 2008 or vice versa. But whoever receives the Dem nomination, I will certainly vote for that person. The alternative of voting republican is one that sickens me literally.

Why is it so many Obama supporters comment that they won't vote for a democrat unless it's Obama? And, what's worse, say they'll vote republican?

[KathySammons]

I firmly believe Edwards won the debate, but I don't think I want to see him as AG. I know it sounds antithetical, but I would love to see him become a lobbyist...for the poor. Think about it: 47 million poor folks, each give a dollar a year. 47 million bucks can buy a lot of attention.

And speaking of attention, I wish some "investigative" reporter (an oxymoron if there ever was one) would ask Senator Obama how he really feels about Walmart, which is the number one retailer of paperback books in America. Further, how does he feel about the number two hardcover seller, Sam's Club? Does he return the royalty checks from these horrible companies?

[ljsfolly]

Those who focus on edwards and his hair do not look at the man. That clinton has bill making the noise and misrepresentations of anything obama says and she is running as the woman all the while having it seem bill is also running with her. Obama has not done the lies and he has been honest and not wavering from his start. Hillary has backed bush all his war and big business and no one mentions that. I doubt there are many who know hillary's stands on anything as she has gone the I believe until I believe something else. Not great either. I still believe obama has more hope and fresh air coming with him as hillary was just the wife while bill has held offices and now she wants to have a co president not the 22 amendment broken but the spirit of it will be.

[Dap]

Dear Brother RJ,

Another outstanding essay/post. Sapere aude, indeed, excellent advice. Agape.

[whimsicalpig]

Perhaps, if these 5 points had been utilized by the small number of voters in Iowa and NH we wouldn't be hamstrung now with these 3 flawed candidates.

I think if the average voter ahd contemplated either dodd or biden with these 5 criteria, we would have 2 excellent candidates to consider at this time.

but NO!! we let the media make it into a peronality cult horse race between the woman and the black man

what I wouldn't give to have had biden on the stage last night while those 2 egomaniacs were cat-fighting.

[Kantinflas]

You've got it backwards RJ. A cult of personality does not make people stop thinking for themselves. People ceasing to think for themselves is what makes for a cult of personality.

[jbatch]

RJ:

I wish every voter went through the kind of process you do. And I wish the media fostered it, rather than the "Horse race" and trip-handicapping they do now.

I am in despair about democracy in America. It takes work to be a citizen, something we're not good at any more.

[JakeEasy]

I liked your reasoned way of looking at potential candidates. I went over your five points, and though my conclusions from them differ from yours, I thought they were an excellent way to think about the election.

Then I read the replies below. About 80% say they agree with you and then begin discussing the candidates as cult heros. Reasoning doesn't seem to be our long suit. I read a paper on national cultural identities that said some nations have a tendency toward dictatorship because their history is one of having a paternal leader who dominates the nation which gives the people a sense of security.

That certainly doesn't apply to the US, but maybe we are fated to always be the victim of our desire to have leaders that we perceive to be better than human. Than and an innate ability to ignore the humanity in our chosen hero and magnify it in the opponent.

[TheMiddleman]

Edward's spending hundreds, and sometimes thousands of dollars, just to fly his personal barber in for a haircut bothers me a lot. It says two things about him that make me want to look elsewhere for presidential material.

First, his awful vanity. Someone that vain is likely to be egocentric, despite his avowed affinity for the plight of the less fortunate, and it really was a gross insult to the constituency he seeks to represent.

Second, what was he thinking? As a candidate, he should know what spending that kind of money on a haircut would look like. Never mind that fact that he can afford it. He should have known that the press would get a hold of and publicize the extravagance, and that his political enemies would use it against him.

A president needs to be a much better strategic thinker than that.

[cuthbertallgood]

I find that I flat out distrust candidates that allow their backers to sink to the level of fan club members. It is nice to engender a passionate response, but a true leader uses that reaction and turns the energies not toward constant praise and lockstep defense of the leader, but toward real world actions and results. An alleged leader that does not cause his followers to take action is not a leader at all. To lead there must be forward motion and new direction.
I keep waiting to hear about the voter registration drives being started by these devotees, or car pools to get the elderly and disabled to the polls. Free classes on the electoral process. But all I hear is more namecalling and finger pointing and claims of personl perfection. What is missing from the picture is in fact leadership.