There's an editorial in the New York Times that I think is very insightful. Gail Collins writes about how the story that the Clinton campaign weaves that justifies the Senator becoming a President has become distorted by Bill Clinton campaigning heavily.
It's an interesting analysis of narrative and story. And unfortunately, it's very important.
I think we should be choosing a president based on what ideas they have for governing and leading the country. The policies they would choose to enact, and the things they value and will prioritize when making choices.
However, we're people. And people need stories. And feelings. And so we choose a celebrity president who tells a story that makes us feel the way we want to feel. I tell myself I'm being meta by supporting Obama, because since I like how his story feels, others will like it, so he'll get elected and be effective. But maybe I'm lying to myself, and I just like his story.
I think all 3 leading Democrats have basically the right priorities and policies. So is it okay that I judge which one has the most convincing story? Which one makes the best argument about why she or he should become president? Or am I a bad person and it's a bad system?
Stupid sentience.
No comments:
Post a Comment