Many political observers note that Democrats have become the “mommy” party and Republicans the “daddy” party. This phenomenon started after the 1960s, when the anti-Vietnam crowd took over the Democratic Party. Previous to that, the question of what it meant to be a Republican versus what it meant to be a Democrat was one simply of large government versus small government. Over the span of just one generation, Republicans co-opted nearly everything that made the old Democratic Party great and perverted it (ex: Democrats, as the party of large government, also used to be the party of national security and a strong military, but that didn’t mean jingoism as it does to the Republicans).

With roots planted firmly in images of cattle drivers and gold panners from the Western frontier, American society has always preferred the spirit of independence to that of rule by committee. Since that spirit of independence is generally associated with masculinity while communal values are associated with femininity, when Americans are presented with a choice between a “mommy” politician and a “daddy” politician, they’re more prone to choose a daddy politician. Bill Clinton was successful in part because he understood that American character trait, even going so far (in an interview with Time Magazine when his autobiography was released that is no longer online) as to use the words “mommy traits” and “daddy traits” when discussing what it takes for a politician to be successful.

In the wake of yet another catastrophic election for Democrats, and the realization that two-thirds of the country is rapidly slipping out of their grasp, they must do something to shake this “mommy” mentality and promote itself instead as a two-parent household.

The question is one of pragmatism versus radicalism. Applying a broad ideology to all problems, regardless of the practicality of the solution, is radicalism. Both parties are guilty of this, but when confronted with one brand of radical versus another, Americans are likely to choose the masculine radical, as evidenced by the last thirty years of presidential elections (Jimmy Carter being the obvious exception, due to a backlash against Vietnam, Nixon’s corruption and fatigue from his Law and Order State, and Gerald Ford being perceived as a dolt).

Of course, it’s all much more complicated than just the daddy vs. mommy metaphor, but that’s one of many areas for Democrats to generally look at from a promotion standpoint. I’m probably just unconsciously rehashing something someone else has already written, but this was what was going through my head this morning.