Regionalism, Presidential Politics, and the Pedastaled Argument

In the realm of strawman arguments, the political process is the main consumer.  I have found the debates of the Republican candidates a refreshingly different game of "king on the mountain."  As political promises shift, the game of perceive the front-runner as prime target deals out re-examinations of the proposals and policies of the most recent winner of any primary, caucus, or debate.

As the primaries shift from state to state, I have noted the winner as representative of a region.  Santorum's slender victory in Iowa deprived Romney of a triumph in the Heartland.  No tears for the Massachusetts governor, as he crushed all comers in the New Hampshire primary.  In his euphoria of victory, his momentum was throttled in South Carolina, where Gingrich eclipsed all comers.  Thus I began to wonder if there would be a trend where Romney would fare better in liberal states, Gingrich in Southern states, and Santorum, if he has a ghost of a chance, in the mid-section of the nation.  Especially in the light of the radically changing fortunes of the Republican "leader du jour."  Could it be possible in a nation that the populace could easily tire of the two main contenders and scan the field for what is left?  Time will tell, but in the too easy to ponder milieu of the scarecrow argument, we've been stuck with a choice between a Mormon and a philanderer.  Unenticing menu that.

I look forward to primaries that will move towards the West, and definitely in the mid-section of the country, particularly the northern and southern prairie states.  A few sorties in the "rust Belt" around the Great Lakes may be an eye-opener.  California, with its expansiveness, would contrast its rustic north with its urban south.  It could well be that Texas could be Ron Paul's only hope for recognition.  It all leads one to ponder why one would wish to vote for a particular person.  His region could be the reason.  We in the Midwest can't understand the background of the Northeast, and vice versa.  We all wonder at the temperament of the Red Staters if we are Blue Staters, and vice versa.  But it is from these regions that Americans as a rule pronounce our wishes for leadership, a sense of "one of our own" even if he is not from the neighborhood.

I have written of the pedestaled argument, the position that wins by default due to political pressures on society that would like to establish settled absolutes.  The foundation for such acceptance, even downright obedience, is declaring a core group as elite sources of proper behavior, tolerant understanding, and trends to incorporate into the socio-economic community at large.  It is a thinly veiled argumentum ad verecundiam, a yield all counter-argument in light of allowing society to function smoothly without dissent.  The concept of election is based on the republican idea of representation of the electorate's desire for leadership to be derived from a mandate of voters who have sought a candidate much in line with their own political viewpoints.  This is extremely hard in a nation that has become more and more divisive and divided.  In the world of politics, compromise recognized the truth that no political solution is easy, but based on a sea of factors that cannot simply be balanced by any social calculus.  And yet we persist, happy in the lingo of "neo-cons" and "tree hugger libs" that tends to consolidate a feeling of us vs. them in the political arena, sanctioning negative political ads, seemingly pointless questions aimed to savage political careers, and a general feeling that America will never find its Cincinnatus that will come in, lead well, retire humbly.  A career politican may well be our best bet, or our worse nightmare.

The strawmen are fast becoming busy.