It's seldom about what you want it to be about

A few of the reasons a goofball marketing and business guy like me enjoys politics so much ...

1. It's an aquarium - you get to see, in action, how people Observe, Orient, Decide and Act in a dynamic situation. This includes everybody: the politicos themselves, the media and strategic professionals who orbit them, and, of course, the voters that the ambitious seek to influence or fool.

2. It's a mystery - there are elements of emotion and narrative, dialogue and imagery, the rational and irrational in play and it's mesmerizing to watch those who know how they can fit together completely befuddle those who don't. And, watching those who get it--or those who've stumbled into the magic mix--begin to (inevitably) over-extend... well, that's why Aesop outsells and will outlive Stephen King.

3. It's practice - the above descriptions mirror just about everything in a social world. PTA meetings, boardroom fights, a group date, a focus group or a job interview. Many times the smartest guy in the room, isn't. And, many times, the smartest guy in the room is woman. Fortune favors the bold, chance favors the prepared, and so on. The lesson is that everything is a lesson, and the minute you think you've got it knocked, thinking that yours is the mother of all mousetraps--someone comes along to knock you off your complacent pedestal.

In comments to the previous post, Julian offers some sage insight to the dangers of this waking dream.

I am reminded of a chapter from a book I read very recently called 'Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior' in which the authors discuss interviewing processes. After reviewing data on how employers go about interviewing people, most interviewers use the "blind date" method - which is based on asking questions such as "Where do you see yourself in five years?", "What are your strengths and weaknesses?", etc... Employers are less likely to actually find someone who fits their company or business. The researchers in this area have determined that the best method for interviewing a new employee is by using the "just the facts" method, which they have determined is approximately 6 times more likely to find an employee to fit your business (though not always guaranteed). The reason the "just the facts" method is rarely employed is because every interviewer thinks she or he can peer inside the mind of the interviewee using non-specific questions that warrant vague responses. These types of questions incidentally make it easier for the interviewee to tell the interviewer what he or she wants to hear.

Yes. In many of the most important decisions, like the above interview example or, say, an election, the important and often overshadowing factor is that WE are right for our "jobs"--that our persona is being vetted and approved as much at that of the interviewee, and dammit, we - are - awesome! That's what being a good interview means - holding the mirror, even helpfully touching up the flaws rhetorically, so your assessor can bask in the glow of their own wisdom, or charity, or courage, or vision or even mere competence. It's for this reason, that yes-men (and -women) will never be an endangered species and why Madmen (and -women) rule the world. Please, watch this...



Yeah. Your product is seldom about what you thought it was about, if you gave its primal, fundamental worth much thought at all. And many pivot points are accidents. Hang on tight, The People Magazine Candidate is good, and knowing. We are now engaged in a battle of archetypes and demographic imperatives: warrior versus magician, feeling versus cognition and, yes, regardless of what many say disdainfully about elitism, for the position of moral and metaphorical superiority. It would be wise for "community organizers" to recognize that the term was more than an insult, and that "sexism" really is about power, except this time, not from it's usual vector and not in the noble way that you're used to combatting.

Just as Republicans are forced to embrace an actual Diana and her strange new territory--identity politics, unwed motherhood, union-pride, awful 'old boy networks'--so too must Democrats not shrink from their inner pitbull, lipstick or no.

More later. [edited the next to last para for clarity]