I have been puzzled by the insistance of so many pundits, bloggers and campaigners to assure everyone that being a "regular" person makes them more acceptable. I understand the rationale behind it, most people view themselves as "regular" people, so by invoking that term, a campaign is aligning themselves with as many people as a single word can encompass.
I guess I am a regular person, but I have to wonder...
What is a "non-regular" person? Is it someone who is extremely rich? Poor? Intellegent? Famous? Secular? Urban? Rural? Mentally incapacitated? What is it? And what ever it is, aren't they still US citizens and don't they have the same rights and priviliges of any other citizen? Aren't they (whoever "they" are) allowed the same respect for their views, their way of life as any one else (aka "regular" people)? It seems to me a president is suppose to represent all citizens, not just citizens that are most like them, or even most like me. "Non-regular" people need to be represented, their issues must be addressed as well as any "regular" person. Saying John McCain doesn't "get" regular people or Barrak Obama does, to me says nothing at all. It's just a cheap way to either assure or deter voters on a nonspecific claim. Saying John McCain does not support governmental intervention for people losing their (only) homes, or that Barrack Obama supports grants to those going to college is specific and tells me something about how they would shape their policies. I just don't get the talking point about "regular people", what its suppose to say about the candidate's ability to govern, ability to converse with world and national leaders, or ability to lead this nation along a path that continually improves our way of life.
Perhaps this is not diary worthy, but I haven't seen this aspect of "regular" adressed and was wondering if I am alone in my musings, or if anyone else finds this peculiar.