The Single and The Many

X-Rayed: Politics

We use the elephant and the donkey as political party icons; but are they really that descriptive? Elephants are members of herds, while Republicans are individualists. Donkeys are stubborn, while Democrats are often conciliatory. What gives?

A more perfect fit for Republicans would be the lion, taking no guff and looking out for number one. And the Democrats? How about the zebra? A mix of color, with all equally endowed.

All of which makes one wonder what else is off-base with American politics. Do we really understand what makes us tick? Herewith something of a guess.

The body politic takes its cue from the geography of the human brain. Our brains have two hemispheres, one focused on logic and measurement, the other on a big-picture, emotional understanding.

Ah, but wait, you'll say, Republicans may be the party of the 'Right', but they prefer to 'feel' with their 'gut'. Likewise, Democrats may be the party of the 'Left', but they use 'egghead' solutions. This, even though 'Right' is all about cold, hard facts and mathematical proof, while 'Left' is the realm of our sixth sense. What's going on?

The explanation is simple. Each political party tends to be deficient in the other party's strong suit. Their failings (a president's reliance on his 'gut' for guidance; the imposition of a bureaucratic solution in lieu of personal responsibility) are all too telling.

To better understand where each side is coming from, let's look at the main source of inspiration for each:

*Republican: If you start with the

understanding that objectively, some

members of society are measurably

greater than others (whether leaders

in financial, social or intellectual terms),

they must be allowed to flourish in order

for society to do well. So, freedom is key.

*Democratic: If, on the other hand, you

begin with subjectivity, each member of

society wants to be recognized and allowed

to reach their potential. This requires an

inclusive message. The key here then is

equality.

We thus have freedom of the one contrasted with equality among the many.

Examples of politicians failing spectacularly at integrating the strengths of the other party are legendary. It could be argued, for example, that the Republican message of late has abandoned any pretense at visionary, bring-us-together reach; instead, using a term like 'the real America' divides us into 'us' and 'them'. Likewise, it could be said that the Democrats struck gold with Bill Clinton's welfare reform legislation, because it addressed their biggest perceived weakness: that they enable dependency.

In that vein, what would advance each party's electability, if their respective leadership could apply this analysis to their own party's direction?

For the Republicans, the way ahead is daunting. Not only should they reach out to incorporate elements of the other side's message ('home ownership for everybody'), more importantly, they should reconnect with their own philosophy. Frankly, the modern Republican party has lost its way. Their recent attempts at big-picture vision have relied on simplistic slogans, rather than careful consideration (tax cuts are always good; government regulation is always bad). This has, unfortunately, led the party into the hands of half-baked intellects (the abandonment of science for 'creationism'), which strikes at the heart of a party appealing to individual common sense experience.

For the Democrats, the path forward is much less problematic. Beginning with their core principals of equality and diversity they have embraced reason and the careful calibration of the logical mind. This has meant that wishful thinking in their own party has for the most part been abandoned. Critical examination, for example, revealed the pitfalls of 'socialist' approaches to effecting equality; thus, calls for a guaranteed income for all, that were heard in the '70s, are no more. To cite another example, instead of a hard or soft approach to crime, invariably, Ds should turn to what has been shown to work: in the case of crime, prevention and retraining.

More specifically, the Republican party would do well to ground itself in honesty, scientific understanding and fair-mindedness before it can expect to play anything but the role of spoiler.

The Democrats, on the other hand, should involve and educate their constituents. For the more each issue's specifics are aired and solutions underlined with logic and proof, the more likely flippant attack ads can be ignored.

Of course this is all assuming that a political party should simply follow the most popular way forward; and yet that is rarely where the country should go.