I have heard somewhere the argument that there are two archetypes represented by the two major political parties in the United States, the maternal and paternal. The maternal, represented by the Democratic Party, is motivated solely to nurture its nestlings: it is committed to perpetual maternal care of its children, affording everyone a life of ease or, at least, one of continuous domestic comfort. The Democratic Party’s promise of a social “safety net” is reminiscent of bumpers in a baby’s crib. Such maternalism is fiercely committed to ensuring that even the lowest achievers have play-dates and toys. Food and drink and socialization are paramount, as are healthcare and educational opportunity. A tranquil and egalitarian home is a healthy home.

The paternal party, the Republican one, has been characterized as a federal daddy, a stern but loving father interested in fostering independence and responsibility in his children. He is rough-and-tumble at times, intent on instilling in his children qualities necessary to survive a competitive world. Part of his role is to make things harder, knowing that children not only respond to challenges, they thrive where there is risk and adventure. Daddy of course provides a safety net, especially from powerfully militant enemies, but his goal is to educate his children to become their own safety nets. Good dads, or so it goes, are lovers without being enablers; they discipline in love so that discipline will someday be unnecessary. A disciplined and responsible home is a precious thing.

What is curious in this American presidential election season is that we are witnessing the clash of these two political archetypes. But the male versus female struggle in the Democratic Party nomination of its presidential candidate is only partly representative of this archetypal struggle; Barack Obama does indeed represent masculinity, but only in the most postmodern, metro-sexual way. He bears a female affect in that he is not given to the stereotypical burst of machismo allegedly common to the American male. His manner is very conciliatory, suggesting he’s more comfortable fixing appetizers in the kitchen with Oprah Winfrey and Martha Stewart than tapping the beer keg out on the back deck with Bill O’Reilly and Chris Matthews. In fact, Mr. Obama appears willing to go so far as to be psychologically emasculated by any harridan than offend the proto-feminist expectations of a 21st- Century gentleman. Feminists, in fact, have suggested Mrs. Clinton is the victim of a “psychological gangbang,” a term that proves some women cannot move beyond sexist stereotypes; proving as well that some women do not care to protect a man like Mr. Obama from psychological castration. (Curiously absent from such feminists is a call for Mr. Obama to treat his opponent as an equal, that is, like a man.)

But the real conflict will appear in all its archetypal glory in the general election when, I believe, the maternal party will finally have a proper figurehead, a woman presidential nominee, all faithful wife and doting mother. Adding to the drama, the Republican nominee, surely male and not one whit metro-sexualized, will stand at any podium and look inescapably paternal. Neither Mitt Romney the Mormon misogynist (insinuated), nor John McCain the McMacho, will escape the confines drawn up by the revisionists who’ve defined patriarchy for us, who’ve radicalized maleness, claiming it is time to forsake the patriarchal past for something that crashes through paternalism’s inherently sexist glass ceiling. In the run-up to the general election, Republican father and Democratic mother will fight before our very eyes for dominance, battling for custody of the kids and the lion’s share of the family estate. And in this country where divorce almost seems normative, we will permit ourselves this idea that we can handle two separate homes. Yes, both parents will promise that we, the kids, will be just fine; after all, they will assure us that they love us and are doing this for everybody’s best interest.

I admit my thoughts are jaded, pessimistic, and dire. I know divorce; I’ve seen the battle for supremacy and control. It is rarely pretty; and not a few of us believe that our culture is tipped in favor of women when it comes to dissolving a marriage. Indeed, it is hard for a man to be publicly stern with a woman – such as any Republican candidate will have to be with Mrs. Clinton – without being stigmatized as abusive. Mr. Obama has already known this to a lesser degree. How much more so for Mr. McCain, when Mrs. Clinton’s handlers will encourage her to push her opponent hard enough to tempt him to utter the B-word during a debate, or at least make him look like he’d enjoy backhanding her around the kitchen. Of course, Mr. McCain’s (or Mr. Romney’s) handlers may encourage their candidate to push Mrs. Clinton towards looking every bit the shrew many suspect her to be, all to feed stereotypes. (And I have no doubt that Mrs. Clinton will play the men-are-good-for-wars-and-chores-but-are-domestic-boors card, that great stereotype reinforced in sitcoms and TV ads, while her Republican counterpart will seek to show her as irrational, shrill, hysterical, reactionary, and all-too domestic.)

What this all means in the final analysis is that America must content itself with national estrangement. My sense, again utterly cynical, is that America and its political machinery thrive on conflict. Mrs. Clinton may indeed be too polarizing, as Mr. Obama has described her. But the one side of the conflict she represents is demanded of her by a populace eager to blame something external for social problems: Democrats blame Republicans, and Republicans blame Democrats. Any marriage counselor who pays attention knows that many plaintive clients are fixed on an external locus of control: they blame their spouses for their misery. America is rife with this sort of complaint; and if the blame cannot be pinned on some local threat, like an opposing party or a sitting president, then blame is tossed outward, at a foreign leader or aberrant ideology. Rarely is blame directed at the discontented subject given to habitually blaming outside forces (recall the “vast right-wing conspiracy” palliative Mrs. Clinton used on herself).

In the end, separation will become normalized and the family will stay divided. Some children will take sides, preferring one parent to the other. Others will reject both parents or expend too much energy mediating between the two. And not a few will blame themselves for their parents’ estrangement. There will be “Daddy days” and “Mommy days,” but there will be no relief.

Sadly, political and social estrangement is the only possible outcome to this clash of archetypes. After all, mediation is not an option printed on any ballot, nor is reconciliation. Let us hope that this November’s divorce is not like 2000, though the irony would be amazing, with the Supreme Court petitioned to choose who gets the house, the cottage, the treasury … and the battered kids.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2008