I Finally Figured Out These Elections

Not really. I thought the headline would be a better grabber than that I’m “trying really hard” to figure out what’s going on with these elections.

Even though this post will be outdated after the current election season, it’s still worth it in my view to try to grapple with the strange events taking place. Here is how I see the basic breakdown of the GOP candidates – why people like and/or dislike them.

Note: Since I can’t get into the minds of vast numbers of voters, these reasons for liking or disliking candidates are my best guesses. Feel free to reply and tell me if I’m missing something or not reading voters correctly. Also, I’m just focusing here on the GOP side of the fence. I’ll leave the donkey party out of this analysis for now.

For each of these candidates I’m thinking of (a) shallow reasons for liking and disliking, as well as (b) substantive reasons for liking and disliking. The shallow reasons are those that should not carry as much weight as they tend to for people. Our culture tends toward the shallow and banal so these reasons for liking or disliking end up playing too large a role in people’s decisions. The substantive reasons for liking or disliking are the ones that I think should really matter most, or be the most consequential and decisive.

So here is the breakdown as far as I can tell:

I’ll go somewhat in order of their apparent standing in the contest, which means that first up is …

The Donald.

Shallow Reasons to Like:

• an outsider insofar as he’s never held political office
• very different, a change up from the norm
• a ‘take no crap’ attitude
• doesn’t seem to care what people think (which may seem refreshing to people after years of over-apologizing, patronizing, cowing and tiptoeing on eggshells)
• already known through many years of pop culture and entertainment exposure (in recent years “The Apprentice”)
• has a lot of entertaining lines in his speeches
• represents a way for ticked off people to give a symbolic obscene gesture of protest toward the establishment

Shallow Reasons to Dislike:

• the hair & spray-tan,
• born into wealth
• increased annoyance at the sound of his voice

Substantive Reasons to Like:

• may take a tougher stance with other governments (China, Iran, Mexico or whomever) that puts the U.S. in a stronger negotiating position or protects the nation’s interests
• may have financial experience enough to straighten out some of that whole mess (debt, trade, whatever that could entail)
• would be less beholden to usual wealthy donors due to independent wealth (or at least he repeatedly claims to be ‘self-funded’)
• maybe more decisive and unwavering in dropping the hammer on ISIS

Substantive Reasons to Dislike:

• uncertainty and distrust as to what he really thinks and what he might actually do since he has held many contradictory positions;
• obviously plays to the crowd more shamelessly than even other politicians
• difficult to take seriously since his whole shtick can seem like a clown act at times
• a wildcard who can’t be predicted by anyone
• not caring what people think could lead him to act unilaterally and attempt to do whatever he pleases to the degree that he has the power or can manipulate the system
• not being beholden to anyone could leave him very unaccountable
• his narcissistic and arrogant disposition, aside from their raw unattractiveness, gives the impression that he does not listen to nor concern himself much with the advice of other people
• more likely to demean or besmirch the office than any other candidate by things he regularly says
• risk of major offense and alienation in negotiations with other governments which could lead to huge fissures in global relations and increased hostilities
• fear of a scandal from his past or present that could erupt at any time

Cruz.

Shallow Reasons to Like:

• a Hispanic name (and the implication of some sort of heritage to match) gives off a nice vibe of racial diversity in the party, with the mystique of ‘first Hispanic president,’ etc.

Shallow Reasons to Dislike:

• the puppy dog facial expression
• the sometimes cheesy drama of his expressions of patriotism in speeches

Substantive Reasons to Like:

• a pretty steady record
• not a lot of changes or suspicious transitioning in his beliefs
• reliably conservative
• very constitutionally oriented
• well-studied and in pretty good command of facts and particulars relevant to the policies he suggests and issues he talks most about
• not likely to be too easily controlled by powerful establishment forces
• a person of conviction who sticks to his guns (2nd Ammendment pun intended)

Substantive Reasons to Dislike:

• may be a little rigid and inflexible on some things,as in a real hard-liner when it comes to certain issues such that his conviction might seem to some like stubbornness
• has had some important questions about nefarious campaign tactics that seemed a little shady or underhanded (although he fired a staffer he said was responsible for it)

Rubio.

Shallow Reasons to Like:

• as with Cruz, his Hispanic name & heritage earn diversity points
• has a more polished look and sound (more pleasant to listen to in many ways)

Shallow Reasons to Dislike:

• ears the size of trash can lids

Substantive Reasons to Like:

(admittedly I don’t know all that much about Rubio but …)

• seems like a stable person
• has experience serving as a senator
• the impression is that he would be mostly conservative, but also flexible and able to get along with and play nicely with others

Substantive Reasons to Dislike:

• some knowledgeable analysts say that he would be much more of a puppet for the party establishment, which does not enjoy favorable public opinion right now
• he has had some odd debate glitches that make you wonder: first he seemed to be stuck in a loop repeating memorized lines, then the next time out he went full Trump 2.0 with the insult-comic routine; the first was uncomfortably strange, as if he could not break out of his script, and the second, while entertaining, seemed like a forced bit of either revenge (against Trump) or desperate strategy (it’s working for Trump so I’ll get in on the act)

Carson.

Shallow Reasons to Like:

• yet again, ethnicity – like droves of mindless Obama voters in the past, you could vote for Carson simply as a pat on your own back for supporting a black candidate, as if to rack up some diversity points (Carson would be the first to tell you that is not the reason he would want a person’s vote).
• outsider, not a career politician

Shallow Reasons to Dislike:

• too nice, too soft spoken, won’t play hardball or play dirty
• unique or odd doctrinal distinctions of his Christian denomination (Seventh Day Adventist)

[*Note: interestingly, his ‘nice guy’ element could be seen as a reason to like or dislike, depending on the person and context. Also, his personal likability could be seen as a shallow reason to like him, even though I ended up making it a substantive one because I am connecting it to his character].

Substantive Reasons to Like:

• the most likable figure in the race, and maybe the most decent person overall
• intelligent (I’m certainly no brain surgeon, but he was)
• strikes you as fair-minded and reasonable
• brings a demeanor that is stabilizing and would suit the office well
• seems like the least likely to have a secret past or potential scandal

Substantive Reasons to Dislike:

• a career in specialized medicine does not necessarily provide the background preparation for the demands of the office of president
• has at times seemed unsure about particulars of foreign policy (or at least in some early debates)
• may lack toughness in terms of taking difficult stands or defending political ground; may not have the ‘stomach’ for the ugly side of politics

Kasich.

Shallow Reasons to Like:

(I’m not sure on this one. Someone may need to help me out.)

Shallow Reasons to Dislike:

• didn’t necessarily come off well on camera during debates (a little fidgety and not a terribly smooth or polished guy)
• has been in politics a long time in different capacities

Substantive Reasons to Like:

• has a record of accomplishments as a governor of an important state (as he reminded voters very often and rightly so)
• does not appear to be interested in the sideshows or in getting too much in the mud
• would carry himself well and be a respectable figure
• has a lot of knowledge and connections that might help him forge good teams or alliances

Substantive Reasons to Dislike:

• he seems to be less conservative than the others and more moderate, which is a legitimate knock if you are coming from a principally conservative point of view (but which obviously is not if you are in fact a moderate)
• it is possible that he would compromise too much and fail to hold his ground (i.e., he would give away too much in making political negotiations across the aisle).

I’m stopping there because any other GOP contenders that may still be in it seem too far down the viability ladder to merit analysis at this point. I realize that Carson has just given indication that he may be ending his campaign but as I wrote this he was still a mostly viable candidate.

As I said before, I more than welcome any corrections or constructive feedback on this analysis. I’m thinking out loud here, and there are some questions I still have, like “Who are the large numbers of professing evangelicals voting for Trump?” Since I hardly know any, they represent an enormous swath of people who are mysterious to me in many ways. I can only guess at their motivation since I have not heard it clearly and cogently stated.

I should disclose that I do not take democracy as a sure and reliable way to get good leaders. It has served pretty well, and most every alternative in the world is worse. But it was not commanded from Mt. Sinai (any more than the Constitution is a divinely inspired sacred text that should be prefaced with “Thus sayeth YHWH …”). Whatever merit our system has is instrumental and pragmatic rather than doctrinal and authoritative. And it’s far from foolproof.

Call me elitist, but if it were me I would round up a large contingent of persons I deem to be the wisest overall, and have them select ideal candidates from among whom many citizens (not all) would vote after a lot of discussion and debate (I mean ‘real’ debate, not the kind of repeated spectacle that passes for a ‘debate’ today). Voting would be a privilege not of wealth but of proven wisdom and understanding.

Yes I know I’m rehashing an idealized scenario from Plato’s Republic, but I teach philosophy so this is actually about as predictable a thing as I could write.

Oh well enough of that. Here we stand in an election cycle. We don’t get to decide a write-in candidate at this point. But the public obsession with ‘getting out the vote’ constantly demands that we do our duty as citizens, so the least we can do in that respect try to sort this out and be responsible about it, right?

I haven’t figured out these elections, but at least I’m trying. If you can assist me or correct me in some way, help a brothu out.