Old Republicans, Young Democrats
Have you ever noticed that people like their Republican presidents old and patrician, and their Democratic presidents young and eager? I got to thinking about this while listening to Edwards’ victory speech in Wisconsin on Feb 17th and considering why he appeals to me and Kerry doesn’t. Kerry is old, and he comes across as William F Buckley jr. spouting populism - although WFB would be much more interesting and point the air with his pen a lot more. Kerry seems about as fake meeting average Americans as a white guy from Harvard trying to act street with his "homies". Kerry seems uncomfortable, and worse, he makes me feel uncomfortable watching him. It’s almost like his element is, for better or worse, the Senare and Martha’s Vineyard two enclaves that most Americans simply don’t relate to very well.
Now consider Clinton. He was young and energetic - just like Kennedy (and we later learned WAY TOO MUCH like Kennedy) - but he was elected to two terms. Contrast that with Mondale and Dukakis - two older, barely "middle-aged" guys who looked more like furniture salesmen than presidents. Mondale made a pretty good ambassador to Japan, and Dukakis? I don’t know - but I do hope that it didn’t involve a tank.
On the other side of the aisle, there was Nixon. Let’s face this fact: Nixon is the true "Accidental President" - even more so than Bush. In 1968 Tricky Dick benefited from Johnson’s refusal to stand for office. Had the Vietnam War gone better, he would have run and most likely won. After that, Sirhan Sirhan made sure that another Kennedy wouldn’t make it to the Oval Office - insuring that Nixon would walk away with the presidency later that year. However Nixon was young for a Republican, especially compared Barry Goldwater and Dwight Eisenhower. People never trusted him in the same way had he been older.
Ford also was a bit of an accidental president - needing Nixon to become president, Spiro Agnew to resign and for a group of "plumbers" to be caught in the Watergate Hotel. Had any of these events not occurred, there would be no President Ford, and no Chevy Chase sketches from the 1970s.
Then of course, we have Reagan. Reagan was the ultimate personification of patrician. He was witty, self-assured yet self-deprecating, kind of like the grandfather that many Americans wish they always had.
Bush is no Reagan, and his ascent to the Presidency hasn’t been forgotten - especially by active Democrats. What the Dems need to do is to consider this:
In the event of Kerry v Bush, Bush will win. Kerry just doesn’t have the charm or charisma that is needed for people to view him as a winner. They will see him as another Mondale or Dukakis, and he will lose.
In the event of Edwards v Bush, Edwards will win. He is young, he is inexperienced, and he will become the screen for everyone’s fantasy for what a Democratic president should be. There will be positive comparisons to Clinton and Kennedy. His inexperience won’t be that big of an issue - look at Bush - and he will no doubt surround himself with wiser and steadier hands at the various helms of government offices.
Forget the issues. Forget the intellectual reasons to support Kerry. Given the opportunity, voters will go for their hearts and dreams. Edwards will win in Edwards v Bush - whether you want him to or not.
The Democrats should take notice. Given the opportunity, Edwards will win. Just remember that we at The Razor predicted it all along.
No Comments
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post. | TrackBack URI
You can also bookmark this on del.icio.us or check the cosmos
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
