In an election cycle consumed by increasingly hostile rhetoric, presidential candidate Marianne Williamson has emerged as a refreshing voice. Her eccentric character, evident lack of preparation, and unconventional beliefs alleviate the pervasive tension surrounding the Democratic presidential primary.
Simply put, her charm comes down to one thing: Williamson is genuine.
Her interventions are not scripted, and project an aura of calmness that’s completely antithetical to the rest of the candidate pool. Regardless of how moderate or radical Williamson’s counterparts are, they all give off a robot-like aura, projecting carefully drafted talking points and sounding like true politicians. Thus, the early Democratic debates have become a shouting match where candidates compete using the same old canned phrases to win cheers from an engaged and excitable audience.
Terms ranging from “unity” to “justice” have become meaningless, not to mention more aggressive language such as “racist” and “the rich.”
To a neutral observer, most of the Democratic candidates stand for similar, if not identical, policies. The intra-party debate on the so-called public option versus socialized medicine strikes an average voter as overly-complex and confusing. Why can’t Democrats come up with a coherent healthcare plan in plain English? Why do they sound as if they are talking to a cadre of pundits and policy wonks?
It’s simple: They are completely out of touch.
Meanwhile, Williamson understands that politics is ultimately about emotion. President Trump, too, knows this well.
Emotion enables candidates to connect with voters in unexpected ways. Trump’s election in 2016 serves as the epitome of this phenomena. Washington insiders, whose years in D.C. have drained them of their ability to relate to the feelings of average Americans, have increasingly forgotten this crucial lesson.
They might laugh when Williamson references a need for love in politics, but she’s on to something.
All the Democratic candidates call for “unity” and “healing,” but they paradoxically do so in an aggressive manner. In our polarized society, you don’t heal through condescension but rather by reaching out and listening. Williamson is right to talk about love as a political unifying force.
While the prospect of a President Williamson is indeed far-fetched and undesirable, having a figure like her on the debate stage provides some useful perspective because American politics has become a spectacle that is more comparable to a football game than a rational discussion on public policy. Williamson, as well as fellow outsider candidate Andrew Yang, has recognized this and seized upon it. Meanwhile, establishment candidates such as California Sen. Kamala Harris are too self-absorbed and desperate for power to do so.
Say what you want about Williamson or Yang, but they actually approach the debate hoping to improve our country, and not merely make whatever promise is the flavor du jour of the Democratic primary electorate. Yet Harris, as evidenced by her many empty promises and record as a prosecutor, is more than willing, and often eager, to sacrifice her principles for political gain.
Williamson brings to the stage what American politics have been lacking for quite some time: truth. Regardless of what Williamson believes in, she stays true to herself and doesn’t try to deceive the electorate. This makes her a necessary force in this day and age, and even those us who won’t be supporting her candidacy should admit it.
Javier Carranza Betancourt and Will Horvath are both economics majors from Bates College and Yale University respectively, currently interning at a think tank in Washington DC.
