KING of the UNITED STATES

(Dem.s are from Mercury, Repub.s are from Arlington)

Okay people, let’s get this party/s started. Sure there are thousands of examples of exception to any generalization that talks about millions of folks. But when there is a screaming generalization to be made, that smashes you in the face on a regular basis; I’m comfortable with doing generalization. There seems to be a functional polarity useful for describing our present two-party system; an axis of emotional versus intellectual. This axis could probably run rather nicely in parallel to an axis measuring age (usually described as under 30 versus over 30). Certainly, younger folks tend to be pretty passionate (emotional), and older folks get more reasonable, realistic, and pragmatic (intellectual).

The Democrats as a party have become inescapably emotional. Howard Dean’s blazing fall from grace was directly connected to a crazed, frighteningly emotional squeal caught on video. This was unacceptable for the sole reason that it made conspicuous the Democratic party’s identity as hysterically emotional by nature. It just won’t do to have it conspicuous! Reflect on fond remembrances of Al Gore vomiting spasms of “How dare you!!!“s. Drift back to pastoral thoughts of the shrill, harpy-like tones unrelentingly maintained through most any earlier speech of Hillary’s.

This is why low-qualified Obamas will be escorted with enthusiasm to top posts of the party; he isn’t freaky. He doesn’t seem emotional! He seems reasoned.

How many times have your Democratic friends scorched you with a sentence that begins “I HATE…“. Hate is a very strong emotion. It really isn’t very intellectual. But I have found this the favorite opening statement for almost any political observation by my fired-up Democratic friends. They think, it seems, their argument has more credibility and more weight due to the fact that they are hysterical about it. Perhaps they’re just advertising loudly; “don’t try to change my mind, I feel strongly.” Or perhaps they’re just boiling over.

How many times have you noticed one of our nation’s proud Democrats who’s so anti-war/anti-violence, that they’re ready to smash you over the head or run you over with their car, unless you agree with them.   Seems kind of emotional,  nevermind the irony.

Not too hard to notice the frequent drawings and descriptions of President Bush as a killer, a liar, Hitler himself, etc.. Yes, the strength of that argument is the hysterical emotional degree to which it is felt. Because otherwise, you really can’t call it an argument. It is simply an expression of …”I Hate…”.

I must also add the most fascinating of all hysterical, emotional responses by some of my Democratic friends: the impersonations of Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory. Now, when a person spends a great deal of time busting their ass to come up with bizarre tiny nuances that create a small window through which you can force a conspiracy theory (despite the fact that the fundamental premise simply makes little sense whatsoever) — at that point you’re talking about someone who is fairly emotional; not too rational or logical. Sorry folks, if that’s you. If you’re going to go off the deep-end, you really should stick to the pursuit of Bigfoot. Because we all love Bigfoot, and no one will resent you for obsessing over him. On the other hand, when you try to trivialize or manipulate the painful, horrific deaths of fellow citizens, it starts to get a little offensive…Seriously,  think Bigfoot.

But I’m not trying to pass judgment as to whether someone’s right or wrong. Rather, I’m just trying to illuminate this particular axis of separation between our two-party system. To ensure strong comments will follow, I’ll add yet more; an emotional nature being traditionally regarded as feminine by definition — Democrats are old-school feminine?

OK, let us watch the comments. I am predicting violent emotional reaction from the Democrats responders, and thoughtful, calm responses from my Republican friends.

©2008 KING DAVID CAUL