Monday, October 18, 2004


Dated Kerry; Married Bush

Bush goes with his gut; Kerry analyzes nuance. These all-or-nothing statements are exaggerations, of course, because each of us actually uses both approaches. But the idea does capture the relative styles of the two candidates.

Then why, liberals wonder, would voters prefer Bush? Surely the anaytical approach is better, they say.

Be honest, who would you rather marry: the one who loves you unconditionally, or the one who determines, all things considered, that marrying you might be a prudent course of action, at present, considering the complexities?

I think the voters have more trust in Bush because of his emotional commitment, and worry that, logically, Kerry could take pretty much any position on any day (and they may be right), whereas Bush loves America unconditionally.

"Neuropsychologists have found that if the emotional decision-making areas of the brain are extremely damaged then decision making becomes impossible. Effectively, the unfortunate individuals afflicted by this problem make endless plans but seem to be incapable of choosing which they wish to follow." [John Mauldin]
Now, before anyone gets carried away, I should point out that I'm not saying Kerry is brain-damaged or anything like that; I detest the childish brand of politics. Rather, I'm noting a principle here: that when we are too analytical, too divorced from our emotions, all paths look logically equal because we have no basis on which to discriminate between them.

Kerry is like that to a much greater extent than is the average person. Bush is Kerry's opposite. And deep down, people prefer being unconditionally loved.