Every year is an election year

How many times have you been watching the news and heard a reporter/pundit say something like, "But don't expect anything to be done about it any time soon. After all, it's an election year."

Elections are purported to be this sacred ritual we're supposed to honor and participate in. Yet the skeptical tone of the "it's an election year" line tells you all you need to know about elections; sorry voters, can't expect anything practical this year. Why not? Because this year we're holding those holy elections you're conditioned to revere!

Leaving aside what this says about the fatal flaws of elected government, today's 24/7 news cycle and the constant need for content means that for all practical purposes, now every year is an election year, so the likelihood of government honesty is even lower. There are no "off years" where officials might temporarily abstain from the more conspicuous pandering of the campaign trail, which at least theoretically would allow adult thinking to sneak into the process.

Simply put: the political junkiedom/news entertainment trend that has spawned this 24-hour news monstrosity is making the political process even more cynical and duplicitous. Far from being "watchdogs," the "political junkies" and news celebs have actually made it harder for the Washington shills to take a day off from shilling.

I suppose I should lament this development, but as it is the news celebrities and their glassy-eyed patsy fans who are often the most zealous about declaring it our "duty" to vote, it is more fun to sit back and watch them transparently betrayed by the process they celebrate.

Anyone but Obama (or anyone else)

Mitt Romney's main selling point is that he supposedly has the best chance of beating the incumbent. It is not unlike Bob Dole in '96 (remember being instructed to "VOTE FOR A WINNER" back then?); horrible candidate, but bland enough not to scare voters away. I don't have a calculator handy, but I don't recall Mr. Dole doing very well.

Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich are all riding various strains of the supposed anti-Washington surge. I don't deny that this surge exists, but when you see how little candy it takes to lure supposedly small government Tea Party-types into the white vans of "movement conservatism," it is impossible not to laugh (seriously, I have tried).

Assisting Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich in this toothless anti-Washington backlash are familiar small-government mascots like Steve Forbes. And what is the primary message of these mascots? Doesn't matter which Republican is nominated...we just have to beat Obama! Gotta get a Republican back in! The fact that Republicans flooded back into Congress in 2010 without so much as causing an intermission in the Obama Circus never seems to come up...

Turn on Republican radio. Watch Fox. Count how many times you hear about the evils of "bureaucrats," "politicians" and "Washington-types." And what do these rants ultimately conclude? Put your faith in Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich; all long-time bureaucratic, politicking Washington-types.

Tea Partiers; at least try to notice the paradox. The notion that it will make such a difference having Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich in Washington shows a faith in Washington not unlike what inspires Obama's supporters. So much for opposing D.C.

Blindly believing that crowning a Republican means the end of Obama's machinations not only defies recent history (2010); it defies the history of elected government. But keep telling Obama supporters they need to "brush up on their history."

These "two" sides deserve each other.

Airing Our Differences

Starting with the Clinton administration, you began to hear widespread criticism of conservative talk radio. Conservative talk radio was called "inflammatory," "irresponsible," and "conspiratorial." [Although it is labeled "conservative talk radio," let's call it REPUBLICAN TALK RADIO, AS NEARLY ALL OF IT IS ABOUT PARTY, NOT PHILOSOPHY].

Perhaps not coincidentally, this dovetailed with the media's general talking point about the "divisive" and "polarized" tone of the "national political conversation." You may have noticed that this talking point has been around ever since.

The inference is that something has changed to make Republican rhetoric more rabid. Maybe something has changed. Or maybe it is merely that Bill Clinton was the first Democratic President to hold office once Republican radio had become dominant.

Remember, Republicans held office for 12 years before Clinton, during which time Republican radio became a nationwide force. When Democrats had last held the White House (Carter), Republican radio as we know it today did not exist.

If it had, JUST IMAGINE how inflammatory Republican radio would have been under Carter. Just imagine what they would have accused him of during the hostage crisis. Just imagine what they would have said about his views on energy. Try to picture the surgical deconstruction of Carter’s personal habits (he wore sweaters!). I think it is fair to say the tenor would have been as “extreme” as the Republican radio that is broadcast today.

So really, the "national political conversation" may not have changed that much. It may just be that a change in medium has turned up the volume of that conversation.




Megaditto my tweets: https://twitter.com/#!/greatMikePayne