The Parsons Theory of Presidential Politics

Policies don't matter. The only thing that does is connecting with voters. And the only way to do that is to be "cool."

"Coolness" is the strongest predictor of presidential elections that exists. Simply put, the "cooler" candidate wins every presidential election. To test this theory, let's examine every presidential election in the last 50 years.

2004: George W. Bush vs. John Kerry. One is a Texas cowboy. The other is a pseudo-intellectual Francophile. Advantage: W.

2000: W. vs Al Gore. This time, it's the cowboy against an actual intellectual. While real smart people are cooler than fake smart people, cowboys beat nerds every time. Advantage: W.

1996: Bill Clinton vs. Bob Dole. Say what you will about Clinton, the man was cool. Dole, on the other hand, came off like a crotchety old man. If Dole had shown his sense of humor before the election the way he did after, it would have been much closer. Advantage: Clinton.

1992: Clinton vs. George H. W. Bush. Classic case of young versus old. Young guy plays sax on the Arsenio Hall show. Old guy: Not gonna do it. Advantage: Clinton.

1988: Bush vs. Dukakis. Neither one was particularly cool, but in this relativistic world, the former CIA director and WW II veteran beats the Massachusetts liberal who thought it would be a good idea to ride in a tank. Advantage: Bush.

1984: Ronald Reagan vs. Walter Mondale: The Gipper talks shit to the Soviets. Extremely cool. Paves the way to a 49 state electoral thrashing. Advantage: Reagan.

1980: Reagan vs. Jimmy Carter. The Gipper talks shit to a Georgia peanut farmer. Very cool. Advantage: Reagan.

1976: Carter vs. Gerald Ford. Let's be honest, the democrats could have put up Kevin Federline and he would have been perceived as cooler than bumbling Gerald Ford. Plus, pardoning Nixon was uncool. Advantage: Carter.

1972: Richard Nixon vs. George McGovern. Another lesser of two uncool matchups. Nixon is the classic exception to the Parsons theory. Apparently very uncool, he decisively won two presidential elections and may have been robbed of a third against the coolest president of the 20th century.

1968: Nixon vs. Hubert Humphrey. Had Bobby Kennedy not been killed, this would not even be a question. Still, Nixon was definitely not cool. Also, George Wallace's third party candidacy threw the coolness dynamic out of whack. The Parsons theory only works in a two party system.

1964: Lyndon Johnson vs. Barry Goldwater. Unclear who was cooler here. LBJ was a political master and wheeler-dealer. Goldwater was an extreme and unapologetic conservative. But let's be serious. LBJ was still living off the coolness of JFK's ghost. Advantage: LBJ.

1960: John F. Kennedy vs. Nixon. Kennedy, the quintissential cool president, won precisely because Nixon looked so damn uncool in the infamous debate. Advantage: JFK.

1956: Dwight D. Eisenhower vs. Adlai Stevenson. The most anticipated rematch since next year's ND-USC game. Other than Patton, Eisenhower is the era's coolest guy. Stevenson was a classic nerd. No contest. Advantage: Ike.

For further evidence, ask yourself this: who is the coolest president ever? If you're not a jackass, the answer is George Washington. And who is the only president to sweep every electoral vote? Washington. Can't get any cooler than that.

What emerges from these case is a clear picture that coolnes determines electoral success in presidential races. (of course, the notable exception is Nixon. Thoughts?) Thus, my prescription for interested political parties is to recruit the coolest candidate they can find. By 2020, I fully expect a Mr. T vs. Chuck Norris presidential race. My prediction? Pain.

Freedom, Fulfillment and the Future

I've been thinking a lot about the future recently. Of all the threats that the world and Western civilization faces during the next few decades (and there are more than a few), I think the biggest will be the advancement of the idea that personal fulfillment can only be achieved by not committing yourself to anything bigger than yourself. This idea of freedom as being free from all commitments is one that has grown exponentially in recent years, and it manifests itself in many, many ways.

The two that I've been thinking about lately are childrearing methods and declining ordinations of priests. Raising children and committing yourself to a life of chastity and obediance are two of the hardest tasks I can imagine. Consequently, no one seems to want to do them any more. Society keeps telling us that if something can't be done quickly and easily, it's not worth doing at all.

This bodes ill for our future and personally makes me sad. A society that views all obligations and commitments as negatives can not sustain itself forever. Maybe I'm just Chicken Little, but I see the sky starting to fall all around me. One in eleven boys will be put on medication for ADD or ADHD during their childhood. One in eleven! Do we really believe that almost 10% of the boys in America need to be drugged? Or is it more likely that a lot of parents simply haven't taken the time to discipline their children and teach them what is and is not acceptable behavior?

I'm certainly not Tom Cruise; I believe medication can serve an important purpose for some. But the problem is in the quick fix mentality that so many parents take today. Parenting is a difficult process where results are often not seen until ten, 20, or more years down the road. Medicating is often a short-term solution to a long-term problem. It's no surprise to see which one is becoming more commonplace.

The same is true for the priesthood. It is a challenging life full of self-sacrifice. You have to completely give of yourself to something (and Someone) that you can never even see. It may be painful. It may be frustrating. But does that mean that it should be avoided? By giving of yourself, do you become less human? Less whole? If we as a society believe that the answer to these questions is "Yes," our future may be darker than we understand.

In the interests of full disclosure, I must admit that I might be a priest today if they were allowed to marry. It's just that I've always felt a calling to the married life, and I believe there is no greater good I can do in this world than being a great husband and father. If that means that I have to give up some amorphous "freedoms" that I might otherwise get to keep, so be it. I'm ready.

"Freedom - Oh freedom - well that's just some people talking
Your prison is walking through this world all alone..."

So it's been a while since I've hit you up with some knowledge. My new job makes it much more difficult to update, as I actually have to do work while I'm there. Combine that with an 80-minute commute each way, and my blog falls a few spots down on my to do list.

---

There are a lot of things I should address in this entry since it's been so long. First, my new job is both interesting and challenging. For those of us that weren't paying attention, I'm now a policy research associate at the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance. I research and write a number of publications. It's actually a really intense job, because the guys who I work for are really good at what they do and I'm woefully uderqualified.

My main job right now is to write the January edition of The Wisconsin Taxpayer. It's on gambling in Wisconsin, so being from Las Vegas I'm obviously an expert. As soon as I'm done I'll give you a sneak peek at my mad skills.

---

The other big piece of news we have is that we're moving! Since my new job is in Madison, we decided to move to an apartment between her school and my office. That should cut about half an hour off my commute. The place is also really nice. For more details, click here.

Also, if you want to come to Milwaukee and help us move, that'd be sweet.

---

There's a lot more I should write, but seeing as how I get up at 6 am, I should go to bed. Hope all is well, and I'll try to update again a little sooner.