PICK-A-POL (part 6)

The PICK-A-POL dispatches were my crack at some sort of Consumer Reports, intended to give you (the political consumer) correct and concise information about the four top brands in American politics today. There were other, smaller brands that found popular support at one time or another (i.e. the Drunk, best exampled by Ulysses Grant or the Warrior, exemplified by Andy Jackson and Ike). But these are largely defunct political products relegated to the antique shoppes of history. Today, a pol with enough clout to have their names printed in an election ballot will either be a Suit, a Hairdo, a Preacherman, or a Fuzzbuster.

But perhaps I shouldn’t say “either/or.” Because somewhere beneath their synthetic political veneer, these men and women are actually human beings, capable of exhibiting more than one trait (or, at the very least, capable of pandering to more than one special interest group). So it’s only fair that I close this article with a tip of my hat to cross-branding in Presidential politics.

While Bill Clinton was more Suit than Hairdo, and Taft vastly more Suit than Fuzzbuster, each man exhibited some traits of both brands. FDR was equally Preacherman and Suit, a glorious bit of cross-branding that enabled him to see society’s problems, inspire the “congregation” to rally, and use political capital to promote positive change. While many Presidents have been double brands, never in the course of US history has one carried all four banners.

But once, just once, we had ourselves a triple brand. And since the setup reads like a joke, I might as well go for it:

Q: What do you get when you cross a Suit, a Hairdo, and a Preacherman?

A: A waking nightmare!