One Small Voice: Dems prove too many cooks spoil the soup

You may be familiar with an old expression that goes “too many cooks spoil the broth.”

Basically, the expression means that too many people in the kitchen kibitzing over what goes into the soup will result in so many conflicting ingredients that the soup is inedible. This goes contrary to the idea in the old folk tale most of us know from elementary school as stone soup.

In stone soup, the community begins with nothing for anyone to contribute to the pot, until one resourceful person, well-versed in basic human nature (or, to cynics, grifting), says she can make soup from only a pot of boiling water and one stone.  The result is that each person involved contributes something to the pot, thinking that that ingredient will be the one that offers the soup the crowning touch.  What results, through this egalitarian sharing, is a soup so wonderful that all are regally fed, bodily and spiritually.  With just a stone.

It occurred to me that although we’d all like to think that politicians of either party would come together to create their political platform soups with the stone soup strategy, that idealistic approach to feeding the masses just doesn’t seem to work.  That analogy of sharing for the good of all makes for a great teaching parable, but it doesn’t work in practice.  That’s probably why we stop using the folk tale as a teaching moment after fifth or sixth grade.

I’ve lost count as to how many individuals have proclaimed themselves as seekers of the ultimate Democrat Party nomination.  With so many to scrutinize, I feel that the stock pot (for those of you who don’t make soup from scratch, it’s the large pot into which you throw the bones, onions, carrots, celery, and assorted herbs to make your basic soup stock) has been over-complicated with ingredients to come to a single type of soup that would be at once palatable while still pleasing to the masses.  Herein lies the “too many cooks” analogy.  Twenty-something Democrats, each tossing his or her particular, political ingredient into the pot, have created a simmering tempest of both similar yet dissimilar ingredients, some that complement each other, and some that fight each other for dominance over others.

Here are those who toss in free college education for all, and those who toss in better and fairer college loans for those who don’t qualify for the free stuff.  Here are the so-called pro-choicers who advocated for protection of Roe v. Wade, and more pro-choicers who advocate for protection of Roe v. Wade provided government funds are not used for this particular form of women’s health care. Here are advocates for stronger borders across the board, and those who favor easier access to citizenship for those seeking sanctuary in America.  The list goes on.

How can one palatable agenda be produced from so much conflicting stuff?  Obviously, too many cooks are trying to make this political platform soup.

But then — just yesterday was it? — Joe Biden shocked even his own campaign organization with a 180-degree turn on the Hyde Amendment regarding government funding of abortions.  A sign that perhaps all the cooks are beginning to realize that they have to refine the recipe for platform soup in order for enough Americans to be able to stomach it for endorsement in the 2020 election to defeat our current president in his re-election bid?

I surely hope so.

Clearly, this unprecedented field of candidates will winnow itself down through attrition.  Some will simply not be able to raise the funding necessary to sustain the process through to the convention.  Some will not emit the aura of charisma needed to sustain a broad base of rabid supporters for the long haul.  Some may find themselves “opposition researched” out of contention, and some may find they simply don’t have the stomach for the realities of political bantering and bartering.

And throughout this process the recipe will, of necessity, be refined until the Democrats decide what flavor soup they wish to market to the electorate in 2020.

It has been my growing instinct that the soup they produce will be bland. Because what I intuit as the subtext of it all is that Trump must be defeated above all else.

In spite of all the talent, drive, idealism, high-mindedness, intellect, and all-encompassing compassion that exists in these many individuals, in spite of all the demographic groups represented by their numbers, what is, in my opinion, bound to emerge, is a heterosexual, white male who has political experience and a traditional view of what an American president must be to his people and the nations of the world.

This isn’t the candidate I would desire for a 21st century American election.

In a perfect world I would wish for a female of color (any color will do, including whitish) who has experienced the political circus and the varied statuses of economic life in America, who may not be heterosexual, who may have military service or a family member who has served honorably, who has a controlled temper and appropriate sense of outrage at injustice and unfairness.  I would want her to be a scholar of the Constitution, with a belief in one or more embodiments of a benevolent creator.  I would want her to believe that this earth must be protected for future generations of children against those who hoard wealth for its own sake rather than the good of the many who populate the globe.  (And for the radicals for and against a green agenda, I mean an earth that is clean, careful and sustainable.)  And I would want her to be a conciliator between and among nations, being a proponent of the truth that we are all interdependent and interconnected by virtue of that creative divinity, be it nature, or science, or white-robed man in the sky.

But the Democrat candidate won’t be all those things.

We have endured too long an era of chaos, lies, shiny and underhanded diversions, and immeasurably poor behavior and immaturity to take a chance on a “wild card” as “out there” as young, female, fair minded, and of high intellect.

I’m resigned to another near-decade of a (probably old) white man who stands on a platform that is safe, least controversial, sturdy, and savvy enough to stand up to the antics of another Trump hate/fear campaign.  Maybe we’ll get a black female to join him on the ticket, but only if it’s safe.

I expect a Democrat Party agenda as exciting as cream of potato soup.  With maybe a little bacon tossed in (because bacon makes everything better).

At least they’ll be committed to ridding us of the imposter who currently resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.