LCD vs. GCF

Posted 8/21/12

Do you remember learning about fractions, back in fifth grade or so? Then you might remember those terms, “LCD” and “GCF.” They came in handy when simplifying fractions, or adding them …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

LCD vs. GCF

Posted

Do you remember learning about fractions, back in fifth grade or so? Then you might remember those terms, “LCD” and “GCF.” They came in handy when simplifying fractions, or adding them together…

But don’t worry, we’re not here to talk about math, we’re talking about politics.

The first of those terms, of course, stands for “Lowest Common Denominator,” a phrase that has taken on new meaning in sociological contexts. To appeal to the “lowest common denominator” is to appeal to the most basic—and frequently the most tawdry—human instincts, emotions and desires: fear, power, sex, anger, status, outrage, conquest. Such appeals bypass the rational parts of our minds, and tap into something much deeper and more visceral. They try to evoke reflexive and unthinking action. They’re easy to use, and usually quite successful, as they are designed to reach broad swaths of people. They fuel much of our advertising, reality TV, and of course political campaigns. Under their sway, people can even be made to commit atrocities.

Let me stress here that the problem isn’t the “common,” it’s the “low.” There are other qualities that can be used to speak to large numbers of otherwise diverse people. This is where that other term comes in: Greatest Common Factor.

This term hasn’t been adapted sociologically in quite the same way that LCD has, but I think it provides a useful contrast, and a handy way to analyze assess political strategies.

These appeals are harder to craft, and not so guaranteed of success. Calling to people’s higher qualities—idealism, hope, love, compassion, empathy, the desire for peace and justice—is a good way to invite cynicism and ridicule. (As Sarah Palin famously put it, “How’s that hopey-changey thing workin’ out for ya?”) But it can also empower and encourage people to make great sacrifices and endure many hardships.

For an example of the latter, think Martin Luther King. For the former, think Donald Trump.

While few politicians have not played the LCD card at some point in their careers, Trump may be seen as the epitome (so far, at least) of a kind of LCD politics that the Republican Party has been using to great effect for generations, since at least the days of McCarthyism. One of its most effective practitioners may have been Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina. A straight line can be drawn from Helms’ politics of ethnic and racial division, through Lee Atwater and Karl Rove, to the present state of affairs. The situation has even alarmed some Republicans. South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, in her response to this year’s State of the Union address, warned that “During anxious times, it can be tempting to follow the siren call of the angriest voices. We must resist that temptation.”

But given their history, it’s doubtful that the Republicans will be able to do that, or to produce a leader that can appeal to our greatest common factors and bridge some of our ever-widening divisions. And frankly, I am not sure that the Democrats can do that either.

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here