tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-865494184012705718.post2560685874853260981..comments2008-05-20T08:13:15.526-04:00Anthony Palmer, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/00043374303541804437noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-865494184012705718.post-14326314179556143212008-05-20T08:13:00.000-04:002008-05-20T08:13:00.000-04:00Brett,<BR/><BR/>The cerebral/instinctive divide is one that I don't think anybody can truly understand. The "brain" voters look at the "gut" voters and wonder why they don't take their civic responsibilities so seriously. ("We're not electing someone we can have a beer with!") The "gut" voters look at the "brain" voters and wonder why the "brain" voters think they are so much better than them. ("You might have your master's degree, but my vote counts just as much as yours!") So there's a lot of mistrust, which naturally leads to the cultural divide between "elite" liberals and "primitive" conservatives.<BR/><BR/>Both sides are right. I think voters should take the time to do a bit of research and vote for the candidate who has the most sound political platform and the platform that best matches the times in which we live. But we should also remember that we are electing not just a politician, but a national leader who we will invite into our homes via the television on a daily basis. This is someone we should feel comfortable with and someone who at least seems to connect with regular people like us.<BR/><BR/>So both sides are correct and condescending at the same time. Regular voters really don't take their civic responsibilities so seriously (think of how few people actually vote or research their candidates), and partisanship has essentially blinded us from saying anything positive about people from "the other" political party and/or criticizing their own.Anthony Palmerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00043374303541804437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-865494184012705718.post-2320988519387704292008-05-20T02:56:00.000-04:002008-05-20T02:56:00.000-04:00Perhaps we should ask, rather, why Americans don't seem to vote for cerebral Americans. It's not as if we haven't done it in the past; Woodrow Wilson was an intellectual and the President of Princeton University, Jefferson was the intellectual politician's intellectual, and most of the Founding Fathers who came after Washington were quite cerebral. What happened?<BR/><BR/>That Parker piece on RealClearPolitics showed part of the problem. She claimed that these "full-blooded Americans" can smell a poser from a mile away. No, they can't - their "instinct" didn't save them from Bush and his penchant for abuse of executive privilege (not to mention the fact that he was originally an Andover man from Connecticut). For that matter, why this emphasis on "instinct"? It should be a <B>bad</B> thing that we rely so much on "instinct" when casting judgement on voting. Bush's record as governor (including Rove's notorious campaigning practices) were all there for all to see, but nothing came up of it.<BR/><BR/>There, I'm finished. I do agree with the main point of your post, Anthony - this is Clinton's chance if she can pull together a coalition. I can't shake the sense, though, that it would have a shaky foundation, considering that it would have been dependent on super-delegate support for its existence in a General Election. Certainly the above type of victory did no good for Walter Mondale, although, of course, he had a multitude of other problems.Brettnoreply@blogger.com