Among everymen and nobodies, leaning toward individuality

Even as I look at the ad now, it seems bizarre. “Imagine Your Name And Picture Here!” read a… Even as I look at the ad now, it seems bizarre. “Imagine Your Name And Picture Here!” read a headline next to a generic and blank cutout of a head. The prize wasn’t for a chance to be an extra on “Friends,” though, or your face on a Wheaties’ box, but to be the Libertarian candidate for Pittsburgh’s City Council, District No. 7.

It didn’t sit right all day, so I went to the Web site www.lppgh.org. I wanted to see just what was up with these Libertarians, and why they had no one to lead them in the seventh district. I learned that the Libertarian Party of Pittsburgh Newsletter is looking for both an editor and writers, I learned that the monthly meetings take place at Ritter’s Diner, and I found a page discussing the philosophy of Libertarianism.

Also on the page was a link to the “World’s Smallest Political Quiz,” www.self-gov.org. In the late ’60s, a political scientist named David Nolan created a political leanings chart with the goal of shattering the linear pattern of “left” and “right.” The chart was a diamond divided into five sections – a square surrounded by four oddly shaped pentagons. The top section was marked “Libertarian,” the bottom was marked “Authoritarian.” “Left” and “Right” held their respective cardinal points, and the center square was labeled “Centrist.” If the old left to right scale on political leaning was black and white with a spectrum of gray in the middle, then this chart was a full Pantone color palate. It allowed for staunch believers, agnostics and everyone in between to be accounted for.

In 1985, Marshall Fritz, a political activist, added a short, determining quiz to the chart. The survey involves 10 questions – five on “personal issues” such as military drafts and free speech, and five on “economic issues” such as free trade and taxation. Each question can be answered “yes,” “no” or “maybe.” The score in each category is fed into the chart to show political tendencies. I took the test and found that I was directly on the border of “Left-Liberal” and “Libertarian.” I was a bit surprised to find myself at the edge of the chart, instead of closer to the “Centrist” box.

I asked a friend in the office to take the test as well. The computer told her that she was a “Left-Liberal” out-and-out and she was a bit taken aback as well.

“I thought I was more on the right,” she said.

The chart provides for more than 120 different political positions and, in theory, allows for exponential gradation with every added question. Our fathers, our grandfathers and our generation can all vote and all vote differently, or rather, would all vote differently. There are millions of different opinions all separated by small degrees in America, and only four or five candidates to cover the spread.

It’s an unavoidable problem. You can only please some of the people some of the time and representatives have to find common ground. There is little room for subtle differences in our government process. What happens to the conservatives who favor gun control laws, or the liberals who oppose abortion? Voting has become settling, finding a candidate that resembles your beliefs as opposed to embodying them. Unless everyone runs for office, voters will always be disappointed by something their chosen leader does.

Nevertheless, having archetypes in government has led to a larger problem. Our leaders have substituted that attractive spark of individuality for mass appeal. Like television network executives, political candidates tend to throw out a net large enough to hit a viable audience and light enough to keep from ruffling any feathers. It’s led to an inapproachability of government; our leaders are both everymen and nobodies.

Last night, Joseph Lieberman appeared on “Late Night with Conan O’Brien” less than a week after announcing his presidential campaign. Al Gore and John McCain both hosted “Saturday Night Live” this year, and in the last decade, Bill Clinton has gone from discussing his underwear preferences on MTV to being in talks with NBC concerning a daytime talk show. Television has given us the opportunity to see our president as often as we see movie stars, and our treatment of them has become the same. They are figures “over there” discussing issues “over there,” while we sit here looking at ourselves in the mirror.

I’m by no means hopping on this Libertarian thing, but this isolated leadership-void excites me. I’m intrigued by the idea that a party might accidentally congregate around a person who comes from nowhere, instead of a person rising through a party only to become enveloped and asphyxiated by a partisan body; be it Republican, Democrat or the smallest third party available. Whoever the Libertarians choose will likely lose, but it will still be interesting to see who they choose.