Ever notice how a person’s second marriage is radically different from the first?  After a divorce,  people often marry someone totally unlike their original spouse.  A man married to a socialite may choose a waitress the second time around.  A woman may choose a  modest gentleman  over her boisterous first spouse,  I think the same thing could happen with elected officials.  After Nixon resigned, his VP Gerald Ford got beaten by the pious, soft spoken Jimmy Carter.   Nixon’s deceptive practices  made  voters  turn to someone they thought  could trust.  Four years later, they decided they didn’t want a  small town Sunday school teacher, after all, and elected  Ronald Reagan, a divorced movie star from California. The pendulum swings in politics.

Is that what’s happening now? Obama’s popularity as president was based partly on his refined, scholarly demeanor.  He was a literate, elegant man who published beautifully written books.  Obama wasn’t an experienced candidate, but he had class.  Then, the public turned on his chosen successor, Hillary Clinton, and elected a brash, egotistical womanizer from New York City who never held a political office and brags that he never reads a book.

Now ,  a rising star in the Democratic politics  is a soft spoken, gay intellectual  with a hard to pronounce name  who is the mayor of a small mid  western town.  Whether  Pete Buttigeig wins the nomination or not, it looks like the voters are looking for someone in total contrast to Trump.

We aren’t always satisfied with our choices. Second marriages have a high divorce rate. Is it wise to go from one extreme to the other?  And should people vote for a candidate simply because that person  is entirely different from the incumbent? I’m not sure, but I’m thinking it’s just human nature