The Occasional Observer

Sure, America is the land of democracy, ever proud to have continually extended the vote to all quarters in our society, save illegal immigrants and felons (although that will be coming too, if Democrats have their way). And I suppose it's all for the good.

Of course, our founders had a stricter notion of what would be required of its citizens--personal learning, discipline and civil responsibility--to make a democracy work than we have today. It was unfortunate that not everyone's voice was accounted for in the early days of our republic, but at least citizens took their civic obligations seriously, both for themselves and their fellow countrymen. What I'm fairly sure of is that the political dynamics that existed back then are completely dissimilar to the fickle, vain, and unserious way that we pick our elected officials today. Take an excerpt from this WaPo article, for example:

AUBURN, N.Y. -- Maybe Democratic candidate Michael Arcuri is running strong in this Republican House district because he pledges to expand health coverage, balance the budget and raise the minimum wage.

Or maybe it's his piercing Italian eyes and runner's physique.

"He is pretty good-looking," observed Paula Ferrin with admiration, as the 47-year-old district attorney worked the crowd at a local senior center.

"What we want is brains, honey," scolded her friend Rose Oliver.

"True," Ferrin answered, "but handsome doesn't hurt."

The research is unambiguous that Ferrin is right: Attractive politicians have an edge over not-so-attractive ones. The phenomenon is resonating especially this year. By a combination of luck and design, Democrats seem to be fielding an uncommonly high number of uncommonly good-looking candidates.

I'm pretty sure I remember similar chatter during the election for our 4th grade class president.