Raven in Philly here with some thoughts on the whole issue of Clinton stealing the candidacy from Obama. I was reading around in different diaries and people's comments, discussing anger and frustration towards Clinton. I'm not going to argue either way if she's a Republican in disguise or if she's stealing the election, etc. However, she (and this whole controversy) is reminding me why I originally came up with this analogy when I was in college and feeling very pessimistic about the whole political system. It's apathetic in a way, but also injects a bit of humor because I think laughing at ourselves is probably the healthiest thing we can do.
In the office I work in, there is an ongoing amusing battle between Coke and Pepsi lovers. We fight over what product to buy for lunches or meetings in a jovial matter. Lines are drawn where cubicles would be. Hilarity ensues. I'm sure many of you have bared witness to such feuds or have taken part, so it's why I think comparing the two major political parties, Democrats and Republicans, to these two soda company giants works.
The analogy is: Republicans vs. Democrats = Pepsi vs. Coke. Or, aruging who is better, Republicans or Democrats, is like arguing over which is better, Pepsi or Coke. Let's look at each brand as a whole... Both Pepsi and Coke:
... are large, soda company giants pulling in millions of dollars each year; have rivaling soda products like Sprite vs. Sierra Mist; both have diet, caffeine free, diet caffeine free, vanilla, low calorie, etc. etc. cola products proclaiming to be better than the other; have had various different celebrities vouch for their product; offer "rewards" for customer loyalty; offer merchandise for the consumer to further... consume, just to name a few.
Looking at the big picture, both products appear to be relatively the same. So what's the difference? Well, it all boils down to taste.
"The Pepsi Challenge"
Blind taste test commercials, if you recall Dave Chappelle doing them, run by Pepsi show people recognizing or 'liking' Pepsi over Coke. A lot of people generally don't taste the difference between Pepsi and Coke and therefore, don't really care. But there are those of us who can distinctly taste the difference. I find Pepsi is much sweeter.
Likewise, let's look at the two major political parties... Both Republicans and Democrats:
... are the two large, dominate political party that raise more money than all the smaller, lesser known parties (to which, I'd refer to them as 'non-name brand political parties') - there's a reason why they are "political machines"; both have their own 'unique' positions on differing issues proclaiming that theirs is better or more beneficial than the other; have had various different celebrities vouch for their positions; neither have a specific "reward" program for voter "loyalty" other than perhaps... following through on promises made to the voters, at least in theory; only offer merchandise, in a way, during presidential campaigns (one can find all sorts of buttons, t-shirts, bumper stickers, etc. for party/candidate of choice.)
"The Political Party Challenge" (( Or "Mmmm, Cannibalism" ))
This might be an interesting skit to see on some late night TV show (though I think SNL has done enough damage already), but let's take a blind political party taste test. Would you be able to taste the difference? Some of you may be asking, "Do I really want to have a taste of McCain?" Probably not.
Tasting the difference between political parties and in this case, between Clinton and McCain are somewhat difficult to your average, 20-something, college educated type like me. Like Coke or Pepsi, we may generally just drink whatever is available to us at the moment, unless we really do feel strongly one way or the other about our choice in cola product. But overall, do we, as young voters, feel that there is any 'REAL' difference between the two parties? Generally, no and this fosters feelings of apathy in voters who, theoretically, should be more idealistic, more willing to fight for what we believe in like our predecessors who are now older and running the country.
Marketing for both party candidates (or wannabe candidates) for the presidency functions just like a Pepsi or a Coke commercial. They'll bad mouth each other, point out the flaws of each other, interview people on the street asking who they'd vote for "Democrat or Republican?", pick out play lists and theme songs that supposedly represent their campaign, make promises of rewards if you cast their vote for them... spend millions of dollars to bombard us with TV and radio commercials, paper ads, mailings and phone calls because if one did and the other didn't, they won't rake in the 'win'.
Choice: The Lesser of Two Evils
Americans like to have choices and therefore, we have just about a different brand name or different 'kind' of almost everything. Just take a look at Pepsi and Coke alone with all their different 'kinds' of colas, as well as other soda and non-soda products. But in the end, each product is still produced by that major company and our money fuels it.
Likewise, we have this freedom to choose between... two parties. Sure, we can chose Green or Independent candidates, which may make us feel better that we did our American duty to participate in our Democracy (which is a good thing), but it often comes down to, especially in recent presidential election cycles, the "lesser of two evils."
I remember when I first turned eighteen and was excited to wear my Bush pin in school. The scathing looks I got amused me. Of course, I realize that I didn't know any better, having been brought up in a very Christian conservative home. By the second election, the mantra of "Anybody but Bush" was irritating and I suppose a part of me voted for him again just out of spite (not a smart thing). Now, I'd really like to buy the bumper sticker I've seen around: "Cthuhlu '08: Why Choose the Lesser of Two Evils?"
I don't think this problem is limited to young voters. I think voters, in general, may wonder about this or even more: does their vote even matter? If there isn't a difference between Democrats and Republicans (except maybe one tastes sweeter than the other), then what is the point? Apathy amongst young voters isn't uncommon. One of my best friends is 24 and refuses to register to vote, mostly because she thinks her vote won't make a difference. She can't get excited over any of it and I suppose I can't blame her to an extent.
Conclusion.
I think the taste difference between Clinton and Obama is obvious - and I'd say Obama is the sweeter of the two. But, as the comments I've seen around on diaries today have discussed, what if he loses and Clinton gets the nomination? Various types of voters have said their reasons as to why they adamantly won't vote for McCain and Clinton and it boils down to a blind taste challenge. At this point, I can't taste the difference of the two. I am only pretty sure that Clinton is slightly better than McCain based on name brand.
Sure, there are holes in the analogy, but it has been a helpful way to explain to radicals (like my brother, who is a programmed Republican neo-con) why it's hard to get behind a candidate as avidly as they do. Hell, I'm sure this analogy isn't even original nor should it be surprising because we are a capitalistic society and campaigning for a political position isn't much different than advertising a product or service.
Either way, I think I'll go get a coffee.
Update [2008-5-2 13:26:59 by Raven in Philly]: Wow, lots of Coke fans. I'm a Cherry Coke person, m'self. :)