To put it extremely lightly, the presidency is an uncommon position with uncommon challenges. So why do candidates seem determined to prove that they are common people? The obvious answer is that voters demand that of them. So the better question is why do voters crave a common president? This is particularly puzzling given that President Bush, who ran and governed as a self-professed commoner, has not had an approval rating above 40% since the end of 2006. If you add that to the “change” theme of this election, the circumstances would suggest that the candidates would make a point of demonstrating their uncommon qualities.
Yet, nonetheless, Joe Biden and Sarah Palin made frequent arguments that they are really just down home folks who understand the problems of average America. Gov. Palin made this statement to that effect:
“But it wasn’t just that experience tapped into, it was my connection to the heartland of America. Being a mom, one very concerned about a son in the war, about a special needs child, about kids heading off to college, how are we going to pay those tuition bills? About times and Todd and our marriage in our past where we didn’t have health insurance and we know what other Americans are going through as they sit around the kitchen table and try to figure out how are they going to pay out-of-pocket for health care? We’ve been there also so that connection was important.”
Senator Biden made a similar appeal, during which he almost teared up:
“Look, I understand what it’s like to be a single parent. When my wife and daughter died and my two sons were gravely injured, I understand what it’s like as a parent to wonder what it’s like if your kid’s going to make it.
I understand what it’s like to sit around the kitchen table with a father who says, “I’ve got to leave, champ, because there’s no jobs here. I got to head down to Wilmington. And when we get enough money, honey, we’ll bring you down.”
I understand what it’s like. I’m much better off than almost all Americans now. I get a good salary with the United States Senate. I live in a beautiful house that’s my total investment that I have. So I — I am much better off now.
But the notion that somehow, because I’m a man, I don’t know what it’s like to raise two kids alone, I don’t know what it’s like to have a child you’re not sure is going to — is going to make it — I understand.”
I appreciate the need for a candidate to show that they can relate to the problems of mainstream America. If a candidate can’t comprehend the worries of the average citizen then they have no business attempting to solve them. However, merely demonstrating that you can understand these issues does not qualify you for the presidency. What should qualify you for the presidency is demonstrating that your insight into those problems and the solutions you propose are truly uncommon. I don’t intend to offer any further opinion here, I only hope to re-frame the discussion. Who offers that uncommon solution, that uncommon intellect?
I think the populace’s interest in placing a “common man” at the helm is really a response to a type of Principal-Agent problem.
My guess is that most people don’t know what the smart policy is in most settings – and who can blame them? Many of the questions we face, as a society, are extremely complicated ones, and a detailed look at them is time-consuming and often fruitless, especially if the person looking doesn’t have the sort of expertise that is required to parse large amounts of unorganized information and theories. In fact, the way we get around this is to elect politicians to analyze this information for us, and proceed accordingly. In other words, we, the principals, select agents to act on our behalf.
So how do we go about choosing agents? My sense is that many people look for someone who, they believe, “understands” them, and shares their values. And this is, to some extent, a question of character and values, particularly as reveled through track record. It’s also probably driven by unconscious elements as well.