Brightest Young Things

The election is definitely the topic on every responsible citizen’s mind right now, and although you might feel like you’ve heard this campaign discussed, analyzed, and debated ad nauseam from every possible angle over the past several months, there’s one part of the electoral equation that has been stubbornly ignored by liberal and conservative media alike. I’m talking of course about the peanut butter vote. So in this column I will take up the all-important, likely election-deciding and quite possibly political landscape-altering question: Which candidate wins the peanut butter vote?

This probably requires some explanation. Obviously, trying to talk about the “peanut butter vote” raises myriad tricky problems. For one, it’s sort of like the talking about the Hispanic vote. Clearly a wealthy Cuban exile in South Florida fits a totally different demographic profile than a recently-arrived Honduran immigrant eking out a living at some undesirable service job, with all the obvious implications for political outlook. Likewise, a family size jar of JIF extra-chunky is going to have different priorities when it comes to choosing a candidate than, say, Trader Joe’s 100% All Natural creamy.

So I admit that talking about “the peanut butter vote” as a coherent voting bloc is prima facie a flawed concept. And that’s not even touching on the thorny philosophical issues involved in assigning voting preferences to inanimate, nut-based food products. Still, I think we can agree that all peanut butters share certain characteristics and values that hew towards a particular political outlook, and therefore we can make certain generalizations, imperfect as they may be, about how peanut butter is likely to vote in 2008.

To begin, we have to ask ourselves what is the abiding political philosophy of peanut butter?
I posit that peanut butter is, essentially, a conservative food. It is mindful of tradition, of the importance of family. It is skeptical of change. Let me stress, however, that the conservatism of peanut butter is very much in the small-government, Burkean tradition. As such, peanut butter does certainly not condone the aggressive over-reach that has characterized domestic and foreign policy under the Bush administration.

Take foreign policy, for instance. Peanut butter does not support the interventionist bent of our recent foreign policy. Spreading democracy in the Middle East, especially by way of military overthrow of a foreign government and subsequent nation-building, to peanut butter, is anathema. Peanut butter has a humble nature. It instinctively shuns a prominent international profile. It therefore finds flaws in the foreign policy of both major party candidates. Clearly, John McCain’s belligerent posturing, his tendency to flout diplomacy and invite conflict are thoroughly at odds with the PB approach to foreign policy.

But it is skeptical too of some of Barack Obama’s stances. While Obama’s temperament is undoubtedly more suited to circumspection and caution in the foreign policy realm, he has shown himself to be all too willing to endorse a robust military presence in Afghanistan. He seems to believe we can simply transfer manpower from Iraq to Afghanistan without fundamentally rethinking the premise behind our “War on Terrorism.” Peanut butter is having none of it. Peanut butter understands a little something about America’s security. For starters, it knows that security – in the fullest sense of the word – begins at home. So what then of the American home front?

On domestic issues, peanut butter conservatism translates into a suspicion of expansive government programs, especially those that would claim to provide a solution to such eternal societal ills as poverty, unemployment, etc. Peanut butter feels that the solution to such issues does not reside in larger government requisitions of power, but in the earnest efforts of individuals. Take George A. Bayle. He didn’t need the government to tell him to start selling barrels of ground peanut paste for 6 cents a pound at his humble St. Louis food shop, dag ‘nabit.

So peanut butter is skeptical, for example, of Obama’s promise to create 5 million new jobs through green energy initiatives. While creating new jobs is certainly a desirable outcome, it seems beyond the reasonable reach of the federal government to engineer the economy in a way that guarantees new jobs while also drastically re-orienting the country’s energy supply.

Not that these aren’t worthy goals, mind you. But Peanut butter’s been around a while; it’s gleaned some wisdom from the vantage point of the suburban kitchen shelf. It’s born witness to the struggles and achievements of the typical American family over the decades. It’s seen many a well-intentioned federal initiative explode in unintended consequences – with dire implications for the average American.

Take an example close to peanut butter’s heart: corn subsidies to promote ethanol fuel. This policy has skewed the cost-benefits calculus of Southern farmers towards growing corn – massive amounts of it – over other crops, such as peanuts. The result? Global food shortages, as farmers spend tax-payer dollars to feed cars rather than people.

More than anything else, peanut butter believes in the unique power of local communities to engender individual success – whether that community is an innovative public school, a Church group, or a particularly efficient peanut farm. Peanut butter understands the power of roots because it hasn’t strayed very far from it’s own roots. Even that dolled-up jar of Whole Food’s 365 Organic PB is at least 90 percent good ol’ fashioned peanuts. It has much more in common with that family-sized JIF from the heartland than you would think. Thomas Jefferson was a peanut farmer, and every jar of peanut butter embodies his political ideals: liberty, limited federal government, and an abiding belief in the power of individual enterprise.

So what can we expect of the nation’s peanut butter vote on Nov. 4? It remains unclear. There are strong reasons for peanut butter to oppose both candidates. Ultimately, however, I believe that Barack Obama’s temperament – his calm demeanor and rational approach to issues will appeal to peanut butter. McCain has made a political trademark of his aggressiveness, his lust for conflict, and his preference for rash action. This is precisely the style of non-leadership that peanut butter conservatism rejects. Thank you and good night.

Previously in I Heart DC:

• 2/13: DC News You Can (Maybe) Use:
• 2/13: 101 Reasons To Love DC-Part 1
• 2/10: DC News You Can (Maybe) Use
• 2/9: DC News You Can (Maybe) Use
• 2/8: DC News You Can (Maybe) Use
• 2/8: Perfect Date Outfits + Outings
• 2/7: DC News You Can (Maybe) Use
• 2/6: DC News You Can Maybe Use:
• 2/2: DC News You Can (Maybe) Use:
• 2/1: DC News You Can (Maybe) Use: