The politics of human behavior.

I’m starting to pay attention to the presidential race. Good idea, right? Since I’ve already voted in the primary, and there’s a big button on the sidebar, it’s pretty clear whom I support.

However, much like the 2004 election, my first choice Democrat is already out of the race, and I guess I’m fortunate that choices 2 and 3 are still fighting it out, and it’s looking like the eventual winner will be the guy with … well, the guy.

However, I’m still not above being critical of the situation and I’ll always look at things with one eye slightly closed and the other eyebrow up. It’s the best way to view politics, because I’m never quite sure exactly what their motivation is or why they say the things they say.

For instance, Barack Obama is basing his campaign on changing the country. While that’s a noble ideal, it’s a little far-fetched. One ad is telling parents to “turn off the TV, open a book and get involved in your kids' education.” Sure. First, he’s trying to change behavior that has been in place since the invention of the video game and DVD. Second, he’s talking to parents who are just as entrenched in this behavior as the children they’re rearing.

Open a book? The last time I checked, only 11% of Americans read newspapers, so asking them to pick up a book would qualify as a miracle. I don’t think a president, no matter how admirable or influential, can get a kid to start reading – or doing anything they don’t want to do. Didn’t Nancy Reagan try that with abstinence? How did that work out? I think it’s energy that could be better used elsewhere.

Then, he tells us that the days of big oil lobbying are going to end. That’s about as ambitious as getting a kid to read a book. Oil, prescription drugs and big media control this country. Hillary wants to reform health care, which is about as ambitious as controlling the oil industry. Good luck to her, too.

I think that there’s a separation (and there should be a separation) between government and private wants and needs. If people wanted to read or stop driving giant vehicles or stop taking pills they would have already done it without the aid of the federal government. So, I’m left wondering why a candidate would be so interested in trying to change our behavior.

I figure it’s either one of two things. 1 – Since only about 40% of Americans vote, they probably have numbers and research to support their viewpoint. Maybe the people who vote are the ones who feel most guilty about using oil and not reading? If that’s their angle, then it might succeed. 2 – They’re preying on the masses of Americans who want to hear these reform topics and even though in their hearts they know it will be an almost impossible achievement, they’ll tell us that they can change the world because we want them to.

At least we want them to try. As cynical as I am about any one person’s ability to control mass behavior, I’ll defend their right to say it, at least. That I don’t believe they can accomplish it is another matter.

The trouble is, we have to first elect the person, and then wait at least four years until we find out that they can’t change anything. By then, the behavior they’re trying to reform is even more entrenched than it was when they started.

The bigger fear, however, is that if we elect the other guy, that behavior will be encouraged, and that's worse than not trying.