(Special) Election Day

I was the 44th person to vote in my precinct at a little after 8:00 this morning. I don't know what that number represents in terms of turnout. I do know that I was a little surprised by how quiet it was at Smith Voke, my polling place. After all of the commercials and the robo calls, I expected the sign holders' area to be full. But one of the designated areas didn't have any people in it, and the other one had only one or two. Of course, it was early, and it was also snowing, a fact that led one poll workers to tell me she was worried that the snow might keep people away.

After I voted, I drove to work thinking about politics. It occurs to me that we've unwittingly developed this system where we demand perfection in our candidates, when we know perfectly well that no one can be perfect. And when the candidate--any candidate--does something that's falls short of perfection, everyone quickly pounces on the misstep as evidence of the candidate's unworthiness for whatever position they're running for. I know there's partisanship involved here, where our political views will inform how we interpret events, but I think it goes a little deeper than that. Just think about how many books, documentaries, websites, commercials, radio shows, whatever have been dedicated to telling the "real" story about such-and-such politician. What all these shows have in common, it seems to me, is that they demonstrate that the person in question is just that, a person, and not a perfect being.

I think this is why the myth that George Washington had wooden teeth has persisted for so long, because we instinctively long for evidence to support our belief that no one can be as perfect as their reputation says they are.

At any rate, we often find ourselves having to choose between two ideal-looking candidates based only on the carefully chosen and scripted information that their campaigns have let out. And since there aren't any degrees of perfection, i.e. "this is perfect, but that one is more perfect," we tend to choose the candidate who has not shown any blemishes while reviling the candidate we've not chosen because they've shown themselves to be less-than-perfect.

Now, in this particular campaign, Scott Brown has been the perfect candidate. He's got the looks, the military pedigree, the debating skills, and the experience. And that's all well and good. And the fact of the matter is that I wouldn't vote for him on a bet, because I don't agree with his views. So you might be on to something if you say that my assessment of Martha Coakley's campaign as "human" as opposed to "disastrous" or "less-than-perfect" is informed by my politics and not by logic. But I think I'm on to something with this less-than-perfect thing.

And for the record, my drive to work isn't that long. It just seemed long today.