What’s wrong with most democrats? They’re metaphorically left-handed while trying to negotiate in a right-handed world. The result: a never-ending decision tree where little ever gets done.
Most days, democrats as an Idea make me think of the spunky runt puppy of a very large litter. The one whose eyes are a little bit too big for its head, but he’s just so darn cute! You can’t help but smile at little guy who’s trying with all his might to do good, but not quite making it: “Awwee, bless his sweet little heart.”
That’s what’s wrong with democrats. Bless ‘em. Trying so hard with those big ‘ole eyes, but they rarely make it out of the play pin.
While republicans try to close everyone out of their world, democrats try to take everyone in – that’s why they have such a difficult time getting anything done.
Democrats’ runt-like mentality when approaching negotiations
One problem with democrats in general is that they do possess many runt-like characteristics: always requiring help to move forward, taking the safe route, afraid to start a fight, afraid to do anything on their own. A person with a runt mentality requires a coalition and at least one, very large, dog on its side before entering a fight. Nancy Pelosi is one of the few exceptions to the “runt-democrat” rule, which is why the Republican Party was hell bent on getting her out of the Speaker’s chair… a strong-in-the-arm democrat!?!? That’s horrifying for republicans who regularly count on democrats to throw in the towel on a regular basis. Knowing that democrats are weak when by themselves has been part of the republican negation plan for decades. It’s boilerplate Washington politics.
Studies seem to show that democrats use the intuitive part(s) of their brains when making decisions while republicans use the part of their brain that is more risk vs. gain in a tangible, more math-like analysis of the situation. This, too, is a problem with democrats when forced to negotiate and win.
To understand why, we need to briefly compare with “the Other” (those equally-as-pesky republicans). Put simply, math doesn’t feel bad. Cost-benefit analysis decides a winner and forever justifies it using its own net-gain criteria. There’s no second-guessing the decision. This is why former VP and über-grumpy-old-man Dick Cheney is so surefooted and cannot even conceive that he’s ever made a mistake in his life: there is no such thing as second guessing that type of decision paradigm. For the life of himself, using the brain Dick Cheney has in that head of his and the neurons with which it makes decisions… once a decision is made it quite literally cannot ever be wrong thereafter. Options can be wrong before one is converted into the decision… but once pen is put to paper the republican brain sees its own outcomes as, quite literally, infallible.
No wonder republicans have such problems letting go of conspiracy theories: once an opinion is made inside the brain of a republican, it becomes infallible truth based on how their brain works.
A problem with democrats: their decisions are never final
People who use intuition, gut feelings and empathy, however – those cute, big-eyed democrats – for them second-guessing decisions is the norm. There’s no such thing as a wholly correct, everlasting decision. Decisions get made, but all that does is change the dynamic of all the various pieces of the puzzle. It’s not their fault, it’s just how their brains work.
For democrats in Washington in particular, making a decision doesn’t end the issue at hand; it adds the decision’s effects to the equation. On the good side, that means that a democrat is more prone to study the implications of decisions they make (say… like going to war… but also thinking about and planning an exit strategy, rather than just going to war and stopping the thought process there where it feels good…). On the bad side that means decisions are made much more slowly and far fewer are ever actually made because it’s impossible to see all the way down the chain reaction of resulting effects. The more they want to do long-lasting good… that harder it is for a democrat to actually make a decision. (In contrast, since the republican brain tends to focus more on short-term goals, they love making decisions – lots of them – and the success of that decisions is measured only by its immediate impacts, not by the long term effects.)
One life lesson the runt of a little learns very quickly, is not to offend. If you offend the bigger puppies, they’re gonna give you a hard time – and the runt always loses. Democrats tend to have this problem as well: the desire not to offend. Add that desire to the brain of the average democrat and inaction is often the result (or in Washington’s case, another committee to study, study, study).
Democrats are packed full of empathy. In many ways, empathy is the common thread that defines all democrats. The problem with empathy in politics, unfortunately, is that it doesn’t work when dealing with difficult issues. It serves as an excellent moral compass and catalyst for addressing issues, but it also makes people keenly aware of not stepping on the toes of others… which is what politics is: working hard to get what you want, which is always something that the other side does not want. In politics there’s always a loser; especially in a nation of well over 300 million people. Democrats hate creating losers, so they’re always trapped between the desire to push policy, and trying not keep their adversaries happy. It’s just not possible. While Nancy Pelosi was the Speaker of the House, she was the rare democrat who didn’t mind making a loser of the republicans on the other side of the aisle.
If the problem with democrats is that a mind that bases its decisions on intuition with a pinch of emotion results in a never-ending decision tree… can progressive policy actually exist in the real world?
Thankfully, there is always the exception to the problem with democrats: the ambidextrous democrat.
I’ll mention her name again: Nancy Pelosi is an ambidextrous democrat. She uses both her intuition and brute force to push policies through Congress. That’s why republicans demonetize her so: she’s effective like a republican, but empathetic like a democrat. Every now and again we see a democrat who uses both parts of their brain to get stuff done in Washington. It’s rare, but it’s quite a thing to watch. In many ways Bill Clinton is an ambidextrous democrat (the beltway called it “triangulation” but they like to sound smarter than I generally care to). Bill Clinton could empathize, but he also used the finite risk assessment part of his brain much more effectively than most runts of the human litter.
If there’s a problem with democrats, it’s that the Democratic Party isn’t seeking out “warrior democrats” who can swing s sword with both hands, kick a skateboard with both feet, and make decisions using both sides of their brain.
Maybe if the Democratic Party sought more “ambi” and less “empath” in its candidates, they might get more done in Washington.
