Our names are labels, plainly printed on the bottled essence of our past behavior. ~Logan Pearsall Smith
Naming is inherently a passive process. There we were, newborns still cuddled in the welcome mat of the world, when a loved one scribbled on some hospital form the combination of letters that would define us forever. Some parents select names because of the way the words glide off the tongue, others select names based on a special meaning, and yet others select names because, well, it—humanity’s newest member—simply needs a name.
As we trudge through existence, we carry with us that name. At first, in our early years, it is weightlessly carried in the wind during recess as giggling schoolmates call out to us. But time does to names what it does hearts--it makes them laden and heavy with life. And as the years wear on, that name will be sobbed out, cried out, yelled out, laughed out, alternatively spit out with scorn and whispered in awe.
It may change along the way, or be modified somewhat, but it, this intangible identifier, murmured by mothers over our cradles and written by mourners over our grave, is carried with us, every moment of every day. And from that very first day, into that hollow vessel of consonants and vowels we pour our essence.
In the political world, where electeds are chosen by the mere listing of their names on a piece of paper, names are the currency of political power. After all, "campaign season" is nothing more than a slugfest between opponents each seeking to tack on as many positives to their name and as many negatives to their opponents name before election day. And on election day, in the still silence of a voting booth, when all of democracy is distilled down to a single instant, a voter will stare down at a ballot and pick a name.
It is on that foundation that political dynasties are built. Those familiar with Chicago politics know that names like "Stroger" and "Daley" are the skeleton keys to the gates of political society. Likewise, heavyweight names like "Kennedy" and "Clinton" are pregnant with power. But heralding from such families presents a paradoxical struggle, one we’ve seen time and time again, whether it be with Caroline Kennedy or Jesse Jackson Jr.: candidates reach for independent power while teetering on the stepstool of the family name. They try to enjoy the best of both worlds, both profiting politically from the happenstance of a family tree while fighting to create a name built not upon ancestry but on actions. On the other side of the spectrum are the countless candidates who have neither the luxury of political heritage nor the attention of those already in power. For these unknowns, the struggle to make a name seems insurmountable.
Name and name-dropping have been and always will be the lifeblood of politics. The path to power is paved with the footstones of familiarity—one cannot ascend to any position of importance without stepping off of the backs of the well-connected and well-established. Even political "outsiders" and former nobodys worked with somebodys to at least lead them to the gate they crashed.
But the system is changing, albeit ever so slightly. Millions of nameless online activists now have the power to thrust unknown candidates into the political spotlight. While these candidates must still work the traditional "who do you know" game, the power of the blogosphere to create national names out of local newcomers cannot be understated. Now more than ever, a no-name candidate can ride the energy of thousands of nameless supporters to victory.
On the other side of the coin, the approach of the traditional media to the candidacy of political powerhouses has shifted. Reporters seem more likely to probe the voters’ growing distaste of inheritable seats, and they appear less likely to shut out the lesser known contenders.
In any other decade, the election of Obama over Clinton in the primary would have been even more of a miracle. In any other decade, Caroline Kennedy would have had a more welcomed path to Senate. In any other decade, more attention would be paid to the name than the actions taken under its banner.
But this is a new era, with a new and ever-changing relationship between citizens and their government. Voters do not have to take names at face value. While the passing of seats from one dynasty to the next can still be met with a shrug and a shake of the head, it can also met with investigation and organization. The startling reality of this fast-paced, information-overload world is that it has allowed us to be more deliberative in our political decisions, so that we may all scrutinize the actions behind a name and determine whether a given candidate is worthy of office.
In that sense, it is us--the nameless and the faceless--that wield the greatest power in this process. We have the power to investigate even the most hallowed of names and the power to hold acccountable even the most revered politicians. On this side of the modern political arena, names are not needed to sow strength. Here, ability exists independent of influence, and the only barrier to our success is accepting the lie that politics as usual cannot change.
But it can change. And while names will always be the endgame of political power, we, this mass of empowered individuals collectively named as "citizens," can ensure that electoral victories be born out of good actions by good candidates--whatever their names may be.