A sailerish thought
I'm sure Sailer has done a better job on this point, but if I try to find what he's written I'll spoil my fraudulent sense of originality.
Struck me that Repooflicans have given us three nominees in a row
who are almost guaranteed to be bad leaders. Bush the Son, McCain, and now Romney. Why guaranteed? They are weak sons overshadowed by a powerful father.
Such men desperately want
to be in charge but usually make poor leaders. The wanting
explains how they end up as Presidential candidates, because the job has become utterly crazy and undoable. No sane man would want
A son of an absent or dead father is more likely to be a good leader, because he had to take charge of the family.
For some reason the Dems seem to pick the latter more often, but not always.
Obama and Clinton are classic examples. Both had absent fathers, both had to take care of Mom at some point. Both have plenty of faults, but pick up the leader's role naturally.
Gore was a weak son, so it's not surprising that he tied Bush in the 2000 election. Kerry apparently had a normal father (stable but not overshadowing) so he doesn't fit either of these categories.
= = = = =
The difference shows up elegantly
in the latest exchange of speeches by Obama and Romney on tax cuts.
Romney says: "I'm rich. Don't tax me! WAAAAAHHH! WAAAAHHH! WAAAHHH! Don't let the nasty man tax me! ALL MINE! ALL MINE! ALL ME! MEEEEEEEEEEEE! WAAAAAHHH!"
Obama says: "I'm rich. Tax me."
Baby vs adult.
(Of course neither one will actually raise taxes, but I'm just talking about personality here.)