After following the Democratic and Republican presidential campaigns closely for many months now, particularly the responses to the two vice-presidential nominations, it seems that the Democrats have once again opted for the "Head" or "IQ" strategy and the Republicans, once again, have opted for the "Gut" or "EQ" strategy.
True to form, the Democrats nominated an exceptionally intelligent candidate--erudite, very well-educated, but more than a little arrogant--as they have in the recent elections. The Republicans, also true to form, nominated a candidate of average intelligence who comes across as "Joe Everyman." Sen. Obama clearly has the far higher IQ, while Sen. McCain has a much stronger EQ. Obama is who you would want as your teacher; McCain is who you'd want to invite over for dinner. Sound familiar?
The same pattern was also repeated in their vice-presidential elections. Sen. Biden is the smarter, more experienced candidate, but is very arrogant and has trouble "connecting" with people. Gov. Palin, on the other hand, is certainly not the sharpest knife in the drawer, barely got through her college education, yet her personality is magnetic and she easily connects with people and can excite a crowd in a way that Biden could never even dream of doing.
I could go on and on with the comparisons, but I'm sure you get the point.
The problem for the Democrats is that most Americans use their gut to decide for whom to vote, not their head. For most Americans it is an instinctual choice, not a rational choice, and one driven largely by emotion and comfort-level. In that way, it is analogous to how most people choose whom to marry: not rationally, not carefully weighing the pros and cons, but based on what their gut tells them. Marketers have known this truth for a long time--most "big" decisions are far more emotional than intellectual. Think houses, cars, colleges, etc.
In 2000 and again in 2004, Bush was the candidate people wanted to have a beer with, the candidate with whom they felt comfortable because he was "one of us." Gore and Kerry were clearly the intellectual superiors, but who came across as arrogant and condescending; sophisticated, to be sure, but not "like the rest of us." Gore and Kerry appealed to the country's educated elites, and Bush connected with people in the rest of the country.
The same pattern is repeating itself in this election. Obama made the "smart" choice in selecting Biden who nicely compensates for Obama's lack of experience in foreign affairs. It was the wise, carefully considered selection. McCain, on the other hand, made the "emotional" choice, choosing Palin after having only met her once, but clearly someone with whom large swaths of the country can easily relate.
This election is once again "Head" vs. "Gut;" the "IQ" strategy vs. the "EQ" strategy. We'll know soon enough which strategy will triumph this time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Very good article!
We were talking about this very thing in my American Political Thought class the other day. We traced its origins to early American frontier history, when the majority of people only had basic schooling. Philosophic pursuits were never celebrated in the US; we were a rational people whose only intellectual accomplishments tended to be of the moralistic-religious type. We were a tough country, tied to the land and our labor, not to impractical intellectual ideas like the Europeans--EQ vs IQ. These ideas have carried over to today, and many Americans still look down upon academia--just look at how salaries and respect for Professors and teachers differ in the US and Europe.
We vote with our gut because we have no idea what will happen in the next four years. Candidates can lay out policy ideas and proposals until the cows come home, but what we tend to really worry about as a people is how they will react to the unpredictable, and whether their actions will likely reflect our values and opinions--hence we chose our leaders based on our emotions and our gut feelings.
I would also argue that while Obama is certainly the more IQ of the two, he has massive appeal to the EQ of many Americans. "Change" is a rather abstract concept, and the feeling that a young guy who is not from Washington will be a better leader is not so grounded in intellectual reasoning or policy--how many Obama supporters could tell you his economic policy in more words than "reduce federal spending, cut taxes for the middle class, and raise taxes on big corporations," if even that? I think Obama's emotional appeal is what has gotten him this far in the the presidential race. Just look at college campuses across the country, they look like an Obama celebration, and one practically becomes an outcast for saying there are things you don't like about him. People take offense to comments that you are not enthusiastic about him (his overall image), but do not really have a problem when you say you disagree with certain policy proposals. I think this is the perfect example of how much Americans, on both ends of the political spectrum, vote with their gut--Democrats might just vote with more of their intellect as well.
Thanks for writing the article and starting a blog!
-Miriam
Hey, this is Dru!
If what you propose is true, does this mean that it's impossible for "progressives" to nominate a candidate who will actually realize their goals through presidency?
It's probably true that most "real" politicians would demean high school Student Council elections as popularity contests, but their own may be just that.
I think that I tend to agree with this line of thinking. This leads me to believe that the problem of governments not representing their constituents lies not only in cases of conflict of interests, but also with "Joe Six-Pack" voters, i.e. America.
I do agree with Mir that the frenzy over Obama has less to do with informed "intellectual" choices. What change does Obama really propose besides this the abstract feel-good word itself? I think that a lot of people will choose Obama because he is black, which isn't entirely a bad way to choose a President. What were the reasons one quarter of the population chose President Bush? "I'm a uniter, not a divider." Remember, Bush said he was the compassionate conservative.
In the end, Presidential candidates can say whatever they want to get elected. As long as the "brand" of the Democratic National Party conjures ideas of hope, change and populism, about half of the people (who even vote) will vote for whoever is nominated. And as long as the GOP means "God and guns", about half the people will vote for who that party has nominated.
Meanwhile, you can bet that nothing substantial will ever change. The people who run this country (and every country) know where their bread is buttered (And it isn't in our kitchen.
Post a Comment