More often than not, people choose candidates based upon the feeling that they get from listening. Then, they choose the parts of the candidate’s arguments that agree with their own personal views. Whether this is the correct method of choosing or not is debatable. Executive leadership is often like a marriage with the voter the feminine and the candidate the masculine.
Thus varying aspects of familial relationships manifest in representative governments. For example, this blog has posted about the family relations of Democrats and Republicans in the US government, with the Republicans manifesting the masculine dominance and Democrats the feminine.
Ironically, one could state that the Rovian era of political maneuvering is a natural outgrowth of Clinton’s permanent campaign. Unfortunately the former sought to use Realpolitik to govern domestic relations instead of only foreign policy. As a result, the father became a tyrant in the household.
In this metaphor, the father sets policy and delegates while the mother executes. Although this dialogue uses the terms of gender, it really means the roles of masculine and feminine or Yang and Yin respectively. It could be two men or two women. Nonetheless, the Yang must not become a dominator or abuser in the household where everyone tiptoes around fearing reprisal.
Imagine journalists, newspapers, and political representative sulking around. Enter Joseph Wilson, a man who showed courage and was attacked, his wife’s career ruined. “Do not disagree with Father publicly. Or he will punish you.” Naturally this form of structure is inherently unstable and never lasts. It always ends in divorce or murder.
NEXT: Ways of harnessing one’s natural ability to choose a candidate.