Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Ben Johnson

GET UPDATES FROM Ben Johnson
 

Voting for Dummies: The Myth of the Regular Joe Politician

Posted: 09/16/11 04:04 PM ET

As we enter another election season here in Ontario, there are a few things I am sure we can count on: things will get ugly, there will be people who are upset with the outcome, and, at some point in the election, politicians of all political stripes will attempt to identify themselves as the "everyman."

It happens in virtually any election over any territory in any jurisdiction: politicians try to present themselves as "every day" people in an effort to win the popular vote; attempting to speak to some abstract notion of "the blue-collar work ethic" by appearing more down to earth.

You can call it the plea for "small town values," or "getting in touch with the Regular Joe," but I'll continue to call it what it really is: Voting for Dummies.

Every time some politician poses awkwardly in an expensive suit with his or her family at a cheap fast food restaurant, or gets down in the dirt for a photo op with some manual labourers, holding a tool he or she has never actually held before, that politician is assuming that you are a dummy, and in turn, it leads people to vote for dummies.

The argument could be made that it happened here in Toronto in the recent municipal election. A city that had had enough of some perceived notion of elitist politicians reacted with sweeping popularity and a massive victory for a working class guy in ill-fitting suits with a less-than-stellar public-speaking record, and Mayor Rob Ford rode a wave of "regular-folksiness" right into City Hall.

And it definitely happened in the last few Canadian federal elections where we often saw the word "intellectual" thrown around as if it were something sinister; encouraged instead to cast a vote for a candidate whose education was somehow more mainstream, presumably; a candidate who claimed not to be interested in his own political career.

It's surely a tactic that reached a nauseating crescendo in 2008 when American vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, strutted onto the stage of the Republican national convention, droppin' her Gs, winkin', and just down right bein' folksy.

Certainly rolling up your sleeves and loosening your tie has been a mainstay of politicking with the common-folk since as long as there have been ties and sleeves, but Palin capitalized on the power of the "everyman" like no one before her. She tapped into that inexplicable need some voters possess to root for the candidate that is most like them and a swell of "Shoot! She tells like it is!" turned Palin into an overnight sensation that has arguably changed the face of politics in the United States since (see: The Tea Party).

Palin, and others like her, have tapped into some obscene attraction to the idea of the working class politician; a sort of desperation to cast a vote for that rare political entity: The Regular Joe.

People, it seems, like to vote for candidates that are most like them.

Many Rob Ford supporters this past election, just like during Palin's unsuccessful bid for the American vice presidency, noted that one of the main things they liked about the candidate was that he was "just like them."

And it makes no sense to me.

Politicians are not inherently capable of leading people simply by virtue of being like those people. If you got kicked out of school, or you just got out of prison, or you can't hold down a job because of your drug habit, or your only source of information is tabloid journalism and you're holding a racist and misspelled picket sign at a rally about some policy issue you only barely comprehend, do you really think the ideal candidate for public office is "just like you?"

No.

Call me crazy, but I happen to think that relevant experience, intelligence, and ability should all be prerequisites for public office. In fact, far from being put off by a candidate's extensive education, I'm actually more likely to vote for the person with extensive knowledge of world issues and a vast array of political experience. I actually think that the person running a city, province, or country should be the smartest and most experienced candidate available -- not the person who sweats like me or drives the same minivan.

And that's not even the most irritating part about the Voting for Dummies strategy. The worst part is the notion that these politicians are working-class folks is, of course, entirely fiction.

There aren't really any Regular Joes in politics. With the possible exception of Sarah Palin, who had about as many credentials for public office as the guy who mopped up after the Republican convention, these politicians aren't really "every day" people. In fact, they are actually the very "elite" they so often claim to rally against.

They are politicians.

John McCain (with Palin in the sidecar pointin' and winkin') rode the "Straight Talk Express" dangerously close to the most powerful office in the world with support from the Joe the Plumbers of America. Yet McCain has been a politician for 30 years and has an estimated net worth of about $40 million.

Similarly, Toronto's mayor, who enjoyed a groundswell of support with his bid to crack down on the spending of career politicians, is himself a career politician. He has been on city council for 11 years. His father was an MPP and his brother is also a city councillor. Furthermore, Rob Ford is still a principal shareholder in his family's label company, Deco Labels, a company worth around $30 million with locations in Etobicoke, Chicago, and New Jersey.

Tim Hudak, as he "fights for hardworking Ontario families" this election, probably won't talk a lot about his Masters degree in economics. And you can bet you'll see a few clips of Dalton McGuinty and Andrea Horwath chatting with some regular folks in aprons or hairnets over a double-double at a Tim Hortons at some point this fall.

And it's just plain silly.

Yes, it is important that our politicians have the ability to communicate and understand the needs of people from all walks of life. But to assume that their similarity to working class people makes them inherently qualified to lead is dumb. And to believe that these orchestrated attempts to make them seem more common are anything but fiction is similarly dumb.

Politicians and we the electorate really need to rid ourselves of this notion that being qualified, educated, and experienced somehow makes a person unfit for public office; because to continue to value candidates based on the idea that they seem just like us, is to continue a foolish strategy of voting for dummies.

 

Follow Ben Johnson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Ben_T_Johnson

As we enter another election season here in Ontario, there are a few things I am sure we can count on: things will get ugly, there will be people who are upset with the outcome, and, at some point in ...
As we enter another election season here in Ontario, there are a few things I am sure we can count on: things will get ugly, there will be people who are upset with the outcome, and, at some point in ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 11
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cdncommentator
10:47 PM on 09/18/2011
Why would we want a "regular person" to be leading us and making all important decisions anyway?

I want someone who is smarter, more motivated, more organized, more creative, and more connected than me.
jimbo57
ni dieu ni maitre
01:49 PM on 09/18/2011
Right wing populism means appealing to peoples' worst instincts: greed, hatred and fear. So we have "working class "politicians on the right who are ANTI-WORKER "We need to rip up your collective agreement and give your boss a tax cut paid for with your pension fund 'cuz that's FREEDOM!".

Kind of in the same mold as the politician-with-a-vagina who is ANTI WOMAN "Real ladies don't need pay equity"
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Skookum1
truth can't be bought, but lies sure can be sold..
03:29 PM on 09/17/2011
When bringing back Christy Clark into electoral politics, the BC (and national) media spun her as a "working mom" who had "dropped out of politics to take care of her young child" etc....this was meant to portray her as a person in touch with working families and the average British Columbian etc....but the "job" she had was a partisan talkshow host on the very partisan radio station CKNW (something tells me in the range of $6 million a year, or maybe that was over the term of her contract, I'm not sure). Her ex-husband was one of the main federal and provincial Liberal rainmakers and spin doctors, her campaign manager THE main rainmaker and spin doctor. Anything but an ordinary person with a regular job....but this was, and is, the sales pitch. Nobody buys it; you don't get on CKNW by being a regular person, with ordinary views; you get on it by being a shill with high-placed friends. And while ducking out of politics to take care of her kid was a nice pose, the reality is that she was trying to distance herself from the muck that was about to swirl over BC Rail in the wake of the Legislature Raids; didn't help, we all know she was dirty in it too, despite denial after denial and "exoneration" by the major media.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Skookum1
truth can't be bought, but lies sure can be sold..
03:34 PM on 09/17/2011
(cont2) It's the ones WITH political experience I really don't trust....
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
westcoastkid
02:41 PM on 09/17/2011
YESSSSSSS!! I completely agree with this column.

What is lost amongst those who support these pseudo-Regular Joe politicians is this:

The political process is not perfect. Certainly politicians have made bad and harmful decisions in the past. However, voting for underqualified, undereducated, and unambitious candidates is a disingenuous "solution" to this perceived problem.

Can you imagine if Palin were actually elected to the White House? The woman can hardly find Mexico on a map! I'm sorry, as folksy and likeable as some voters seem to find her, electing a clearly underqualified and ignor@nt candidate to a VERY important office would be a huge mistake.

The problems of the world will NOT be solved by appointing the stup!dest and least educated amongst us leaders. That is truly backwards thinking.
Jack Canuckski
Canadian Observer of the passing scene
01:18 PM on 09/17/2011
When I consider what kind of politician I would vote for, I think of what Trudeau answered when he was asked why he went into politics. He answered simply that he didn't want his life governed by those less intelligent than himself.
When I'm voting for a candidate, I want to know that the candidate knows more than I do, is better educated than I, but I also want a candidate whose purpose is to improve the lives of his or her constituents, not the bottom lines of their political donors.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Helen In Canada
01:39 AM on 09/17/2011
I agree with you. Having said that, I believe it's smart self-promotion for people running for public office to communicate reasonably with the widest slice of the voting population. The typical person doesn't have a law degree or economics masters or urban planning PhD, etc., so it wouldn't make sense to talk in great detail about your plans, but to put the bottom line out there - you care about not raising taxes, you don't want that company/plant to close down, you want to raise minimum wage, etc... because that's what the majority of casually observing voters will notice. There HAVE been very eloquent (and popular) politicians such as Trudeau, Obama, but they did have the ability to repeat the easy slogans when in a pinch.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Ben Johnson
11:08 AM on 09/17/2011
Fair enough. Politicians are selling a product in essence so even the smartest ones need to be able to appeal to the masses.
photo
Felix99
Born to be mild!!!!
02:42 AM on 09/18/2011
Well, Helen, of course the politician will never talk about raising taxes!! See what happened to Stanfield when he said the economy was such that, if elected, he would have to freeze wages. Trudeau made a big show about freezing this and freezing that, and then, after being elected he froze everything!!! Haven't voted for the Liberals since.

Yes, Obama is very eloquent, but in daily combat with the Republicans he has retreated on everything they challenged him on. People are giving up on him, with the result that next year's election is getting really scary. Because, needless to say, anything that happens in the US affects Canada!!!
photo
Mike Beckett
LibDem Cllr & Director of Caring for Business Ltd
08:51 PM on 09/16/2011
Cross Sector leadership is important but in politics being around to take opportunities for advancement in the fast track seems to generally limit the gene pool nearer the top. Certainly being like us is considered important by the voters but usually without the support of a party machine behind you it is not enough. Personal support for the candidate plus party support are the two factors that help win elections and the higher up you go the more the second one is needed because those who actually know you are proportionally less of the electorate, unless you can through mass media 'make a connection' as Palin has undoubtedly done with some voters.

If politicians were chosen on competence or academic ability or moral character, we might have three very different sets in government. If the people choose then most people have other priorities they consider more pressing and therefore they often make judgements on what are less rational grounds, 'I like his smile' or 'I met one of his friends who was charming so he must be good' this is political reality. Each demographic has its criteria for making its decisions and for those who find politics interesting or leadership alluring then our standards maybe more exacting than others may expect.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Ben Johnson
11:02 AM on 09/17/2011
Yes, there is a whole other argument to be made about the fact that those lead are inherently not totally selfless. Anyone who is urged to lead must obviously crave a little of the limelight or have a touch of ego.
And the party system obviously favours those with the connections, but, in theory, it shouldn't inhibit the leader with the competence or academic ability or moral character to emerge on top (please note I said "in theory").