deign

She stands behind the podium, smiling incessantly, reading prepared answers from the teleprompter scrolling on her neurons. Her accent ebbs and flows depending on the severity of the topic, or how ill-versed she may be on it. She stares into the camera talking with the people on the other side of it.

He, a week before, stood behind a similar podium, uncomfortable and shifty. He refused to meet eyes with his opponent, snickering, mocking and berating. He joked and blathered, showing no respect for the man opposite or the audience.

Both simplify their points to the point of stupidity, redundantly repeating themselves, no matter the question. Both emphasize their being one of the people, just like the average Joe Six-pack staring at them on his television screen between handfuls of Fritos. Both are the down-home folksy type you'd like to run into at a bar or PTA meeting, full of stories, anecdotes and clichés.

They're vying for the two highest offices on the planet, to lead the largest empire ever known. They joke and prod as if unaffected by the pressures of those positions. They talk to their audience as though they're small children, needing everything explained to them to relate.

He stands behind the podium with the nervous confidence of experience. He misspeaks occasionally but knows the important names, countries and policies. He's firm and succinct, relying on facts and anecdotes many relate to. He's personable and professional.

He stood at his own podium six days prior, confident and calm. He spoke eloquently with passion and fervor. He conceded points of agreement, listening closely to his opponents points, but was strong in his responses. He talked without simplifying past a point of comprehension.

Both exude the confidence of knowing where they wish to take the nation. Both choose not to dumb down their rhetoric or spew canned responses. They speak from close to their heart—or at least the political equivalent—about issues they seem to care much about.

They, too, are vying for that same office. They approach it with seriousness, joking only to emphasize their points or deflect attacks. They're poised and friendly. They speak to the audience as peers, hoping those that agree with them will be emboldened and those that are unsure will be swayed.

The two pairs talk to different populations. The First speaks to those that are down and out but too ignorant to realize their policies helped get them there. They speak to those that believe they are wealthy and strong, that believe our nation is entitled to its global dominance. They also speak to those whom are wealthy, offering them more wealth and less regulation.

The Second speaks to those that are tired of being oppressed, realizing the current policies make it difficult for them to lift themselves up. They speak to those who have compassion, to those that believe our country must earn its place atop the global power pyramid or that we're squandering that position. They speak to those that feel gifts to those already blessed will only create more hardship.

When over ninety-percent of the nation earns less than one hundred thousand dollars annually, a number seen as middle class, how could those within that percentile vote for candidates that advocate giving the other five-percent more financial freedom? Because they feel they know the candidates. They feel the candidate sees things from their perspective.

Most don't realize that the same candidates who pander so easily with the working class—more accurately, the working poor—are far from seeing things from the same perspective. Votes against minimum wage increases, for tax cuts to the richest five-percent and for unlimited military spending show a disconnect that must be hidden to garner votes.

While the Second Pair appeals to those aware and frustrated with the current conditions, the First must talk down to another America. One that fears unpredictable attacks from ambiguous others. One that doesn't believe in the eroding ecosystems, has strong racist views and wants a President he or she can relate to.

I want a President smarter than I am. I can't run a nation and would never want to. I don't want someone I'd take shots with behind the desk within the Oval Office. The folksy, lowest-common-denominator rhetoric is embarrassing. To think someone with regressive ideals should lead a nation on the precipice of economic collapse is laughable.

But, I am not the one the First Pair sees when they stare blankly into the camera. I am among the vast minority. I've been through college, have a salaried job and follow news from multiple sources. I question the motivation behind reports and don't trust opinions to be fed to me.

With less than a quarter of the nation graduating from four-year universities and large cuts to federal funding to colleges decreasing while financial strain on many families grows, my minority will only grow smaller. More folksy candidates, with their brazen lies and low-brow tactics, will come to replace the others and they will speak to the same imaginary sea of infants the First Pair does.

Unfortunately, there will be smaller and smaller numbers to resist them.