Passion and Reason

Some juxtapositions are just too good to pass by without comment.

This morning’s Washington Post has an article by Stephanie McCrummen entitled, “At rallies, Hillary Clinton’s supporters are looking for logic, not passion.”  It picks up on an important theme in this year’s campaign which might at first seem like a matter of style, but is actually a critical matter of substance.”

We see “passion” all around us. The huge screaming crowds at Trump and Sanders rallies, the beat-em-up readiness for a fight at Trump events. The unvarnished, raucous, in-your-face quality of the blogo-twitter-sphere that degenerates into a usually childish slugfest under cover of anonymity within a couple of posts, even in the conventional leading press. Then there is thread of Republicans party who find John Kasich just, well, boring in comparison. And the Democrats who might like Hillary Clinton’s experience and knowledge, but (looking over their shoulder wistfully at the Sanders rallies) just don’t see real passion in her by comparison. Just don’t feel swept off their feet.

The WAPO article does a good job of wading into the “passion” issue — it’s worth reading, and I won’t repeat the points here.

Of course politics requires both reason and passion — the latter perhaps also translated as commitment, dedication, a mission. But this may also be a distinction that plays differently with respect to running for office  and holding office. Getting to be president puts primacy on being able to attract and energize crowds. The work of being president requires very different skills, even if energized crowds are great photo ops for an office holder.

Serious matters. But I couldn’t help laughing when, in my on-line version of the article, I found the following article/advertisement juxtaposition.  Or maybe I’m mistaken … maybe really part of the article?

Viagra     @VSapiro