Eccentric Flower:201001/Disgruntlement
From Eccentric Flower
«January 2010 «Eccentric Flower
Disgruntlement
OK, I have about half an hour of reasonably free time before lunch (after lunch the fun and games start again), so I can take a moment to try to write an entry. I tried to write one the other day, which took me an hour, and near the end of the entry I did something stupid and lost it, and got really annoyed, not so much at the lost words, but because I was really supposed to be working during that hour, so it was wasted time in two senses of the word.
You may have noticed there has not been a lot of me around. I've managed a few Twitter posts every day, but haven't had the time for any sort of longer-form updates. I did well on my personal email for a while when I moved it to the right machine, checking it daily or bi-daily, but fell behind nearly a week. Most channels of communication have been set on "please hold."
The reason is this. For about the last twelve days, if it is daylight outside and I'm not at some meeting or obligation I absolutely can't beg out of, I have been writing code. I have been getting up, working on code as soon as my brain is awake enough to be capable of it, and not stopping until the cocktail hour. I worked every day through the long weekend, as much as I could; I tried to work some every day the weekend before. Last night I stopped at cocktail time, but I was too fried to get back on the computer and stare at online games after dinner. I just could not do it.
I haven't had this intense a period of doing nothing but write code for many years now, and there's a reason for that. I'm not fond of it. But the code is pretty much done now, and it will be done (just) in time for its hard deadlines, and by Friday - once it is used live and we get past its actual moment of need - I should be able to take some deep breaths and calm down for a while.
I would say more about what I'm actually working on but 1) it gets a little close to describing where I work and what I do, which I don't do in unlocked entries; 2) it's not especially fascinating; 3) you don't really care.
Some of you may be wondering why a pissant, one-off Massachusetts contest for U.S. senator is suddenly a matter of national interest. Some of you may be trying to sort out conflicting information about this matter. Allow me to clarify.
Martha Coakley is our attorney general. I feel she's been a pretty good AG (others disagree), but I am reluctant to have her as a senator, because I believe that's a different skill set. I believe a senator has to be schooled in compromise, wheeling-dealing, back-room negotiations - or at least that used to be the case, before politicians stopped practicing politics and just started shouting nasty names across the aisle at one another all day.
Anyway, I don't think she's going to be a great senator, but she tromped all over a better candidate during the primary, partly (I hate to say it but it's true) because she is female, and partly because the better candidate was seen as, yes, a compromising, wheeling-dealing, back-room negotiator. In other words, she was voted into the general election by people like my wife,[see comments -c] who erroneously believe there is room in politics to have inviolate, non-negotiable ideals.
But my wife, while she may lapse into Lisa Simpson moral-injustice mode too frequently for my taste, is not a patch on the illusions of the people who are voting for the Republican candidate, Scott Brown.
Brown is playing to people's disgruntlement, and he is doing a good job of it. He's playing to the people who only see the health care bill in terms of what it's going to cost them. He has vowed to try to scuttle it. Now, as I've said in this very space, I think the health care bill as it stands right now is a dreadful mess, an obscene pile of ineffectual bloat. But even I believe that having the bad bill is better than having no bill at all.
Brown is of the school of Republican thought (which is, alas, the norm in that party these days) that thinks it would be better to have nothing at all. The Republicans now seem to only be about impeding all activity. They have no ideas of their own; they exist only to obstruct.
Brown is taking the people who are upset about jobs and promising, in effect, to make it better. But he has no way to make it better, so this is a lie. No one has any way to make it better.
I say again, as I have said at least once a month for the past six months: Those jobs are not coming back. They are never coming back. We are in the middle of a major paradigm shift in the economy. Manufacturing: Not coming back. Blue-collar: mostly not coming back. I wish to god there was a politician anywhere in America who had the guts to say this.
Anyway, so, Brown is a guy with bad politics who is running a very good campaign. He's really doing the legwork. He's been stumping like hell, going door-to-door, shaking hands, working it.
Coakley, on the other hand, is a person with basically good politics who is running a very bad campaign. Until the panic set in, near the end, she was nearly invisible. She acted like she was the anointed one and this election was hers without her really needing to work for it. This pisses voters off, and justifiably so. If Coakley loses, it will be her own damned fault.
Unfortunately, the fractious nature of our shout-across-the-aisle national politics, and the sordid state of Republican opposition, means that if the Democrats lose their 60-vote basis, no legislation will happen. I can easily believe that the Republican party is prepared to filibuster every piece of legislation that comes their way, just from sheer perversity. This is no way to run a railroad.
In the old world, in the world where politicians still practiced politics, there was give-and-take. You'd walk across the aisle and say, "Look, if you hold your nose and vote for this, I'll return the favor next time there's something YOU need to pass." But that doesn't work anymore. Now to do any major work, everybody on the side trying to get it passed must be absolutely in lockstep to get those 60 votes - which is just as bad; I am against kneejerk unity, even on the side I'm supposed to be on. If I were a Democrat in national office I'd be mighty unhappy right now.
This race is also being held up as a test case for Republican strategy, such as it isn't. They believe (and they have a point) that if Brown can win with these tactics in Massachusetts, the bluest blue state in the union, then they can win with them anywhere. Alas, they may be right.
So the national Dems are in an utter panic. And that's how we get the spectacle of Barack Obama prostituting himself to a race that should be beneath his notice; that's how I get robocalls an average of four times a day for the past week, including messages from Obama and Bill Clinton; that's why the political ads have been so thick and fast that I think during a recent "Jeopardy!" there were no ads for actual consumer goods; and that's why it's intruding into your websites and such, over there in Chicago or Weehawken or Sacramento or wherever.
We, the shrinking sane population of Massachusetts, apologize for this. But you can take comfort in the fact that as much as you may be sick of hearing about it, we're ten times worse off.
You know, I understand disgruntlement. I understand that there are a lot of people coming to grips out there with the fact that the economy is waving bye-bye to them as it recedes into the distance, never to return to their part of the universe. I understand that causes fear and pain and anger and hate. But there is such a thing as cluelessness, too.
In other words, they are either very naive or they are idiots.
That quote was from Andrew Sullivan. I quoted it first, because for some of you, if I say "Andrew Sullivan" you automatically don't go read it, and I wanted everyone to read it. I think it's important. I think it is a description of the kind of voter who, ultimately, are the ones responsible for flushing this country down the toilet. When the blame comes (and it is never too early for blame), it will not go to the evil men who led them and urged them into this way of thinking, but to the voters who ultimately fell for it and decided it was okay to want dessert all the time without ever having to eat their broccoli.
Alas, I disagree with Sullivan's next paragraph:
No. If Obama changes his style to pander to these idiots (which is not the only possible reading of "change in a more populous direction," but is the one I see here), then we are right back where we started and we might as well not have elected him in the first place. Sometimes populism is good. I am often in favor of populism. But not when its basic desires are predicated on things that are clearly impossible.
Obama needs to tack left and be a hardliner. There is no center anymore; it's a pleasant illusion. He needs to be just as mean as his opposition. He needs to fling their shit back into their faces. It's well past time to admit this is war, and that we are losing it to the idiots and the evil men who manipulate them.
I bet you'd have preferred that I continued the silence!
In other words, [Coakley] was voted into the general election by people like my wife, who erroneously believe there is room in politics to have inviolate, non-negotiable ideals.
In case you've forgotten, her stance on the PATRIOT Act convinced me to vote for someone else during the primaries. I did just vote for her an hour ago, though, because between the person who thinks the PATRIOT Act is not completely unsalvageable, and the person who thinks waterboarding is A-OK, I'll take Ms. PATRIOT Act.
-- 18:30, 19 January 2010 (GMT)
Iain: Well, put it another way. He needs to find a position. Wouldn't you rather it be a position on the left?
By the by, I posted the entry above fifteen minutes before I picked up this week's Economist, whose cover story is "Time to get tough: Lessons from Obama's first year." I swear it.
Most of the Economist's US articles this week are more reasoned, more careful version of the same basic set of points I made above: Obama needs to stop trying to be friends with everybody; the US Senate is broken; a lot of Obama's sinking status has nothing to do with his actual actions but with people being disgusted and taking it out on the folks in power; and the jobs ain't coming back. I'd quote all this so you'd believe me, but since The Economist locked everything useful on its web site, you'll just have to go get the issue for yourself.
One quote, on jobs, which is brief enough to type in:
(Emphasis mine.)
Which is what I have been saying. If you were in manufacturing, heavy industry, or any blue-collar trade like construction, your job ain't coming back. Learn to be a nurse or a teacher, or prepare to work at Wal-Mart or McDonald's. In the next twenty years the euphemistically-named service sector will be the only one that shows any long-term growth. This is my prediction; I first made it several years ago, and I continue to stand by it. If you don't believe me, believe The Economist.
-- 19:14, 19 January 2010 (GMT)
Nonelvis: I could have sworn you said you voted for Coakley during the primaries. mea culpa.
-- 19:14, 19 January 2010 (GMT)
Sullivan on the temptation to freak out and why we shouldn't:
And, from a different item:
-- 19:34, 19 January 2010 (GMT)
This is tangential, but why do you buy the Economist at the newsstand each week when a subscription, presumably, would be cheaper and give you access to the site?
-- 19:39, 19 January 2010 (GMT)
Iain:
Iain: Well, put it another way. He needs to find a position. Wouldn't you rather it be a position on the left?
Well, of course. But it's patently obvious that he won't do that. He doesn't like the left, he doesn't particularly want the left, his administration is profoundly centrist and rather resents having to have anything whatsoever to do with the left. He may or may not be able to get tough about whatever he really believes in as a core cause -- we haven't seen the slightest sign that he will or can because he's spent the entire first year wooing Republicans (and we see how well that went).
I really don't expect him to find a viable position that makes his administration workable.
-- 19:47, 19 January 2010 (GMT)
Iain: Once again you manage to be even more cynical than I am, which is truly shocking, and also I don't think I agree with you. But the margin is too small to contain the proof. Another day.
Robert: 1) I like giving Out of Town News my business.
2) Since I read them entirely at lunch on Mondays and Tuesdays (front matter through Asia on Monday, the balance on Tuesday - I'm a day late this week because of the holiday), they never travel to or from my house; they come back to work overnight and are recycled after lunch on Tuesday, and I like that system. I walk to and from work and the less I lug around with me the better. If they were delivered to my house I would forget to bring them to work, and then they wouldn't get read on a timely basis.
-- 19:52, 19 January 2010 (GMT)
I could point out that you could have it delivered to your office, but you don't sound like you're in the mood to be quibbled with today.
More importantly, AP is reporting that turnout is heavy, despite snow showers. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/01/19/2010-01-19_mass_hysteria_.html I would think a big turnout would favor Coakley.
-- 20:03, 19 January 2010 (GMT)
Iain:
Once again you manage to be even more cynical than I am, which is truly shocking, and also I don't think I agree with you. But the margin is too small to contain the proof. Another day.
Yes, well, when someone alternately hands you a (truthfully, somewhat large) crumb, and then takes a great heaping crap on you, one tends to demand that they prove themselves, and to fully expect that they won't. It's really the only sane position to take.
-- 20:11, 19 January 2010 (GMT)
I'm trying to reconcile your position that senators primarily need to be good at wheeling, dealing, and compromising without having hardline positions, with your position that Obama needs to stop wheeling, dealing, and compromising and start taking hardline positions. Is this an inherent difference between the legislative and executive branches in your opinion?
Edited to note that I think such a distinction would be reasonable. On the other hand, I agree with Iain that Obama is a centrist who just doesn't work that way. On the third hand, I think that may be a saving grace of his administration which just might pay off, so either I'm more optimistic or more deluded. :-)
-- 21:15, 19 January 2010 (GMT)
I hesitate to jump in here, as I hail from The Dark Side, but here goes:
"Well, put it another way. He needs to find a position. Wouldn't you rather it be a position on the left?"
"Well, of course. But it's patently obvious that he won't do that. He doesn't like the left, he doesn't particularly want the left, his administration is profoundly centrist and rather resents having to have anything whatsoever to do with the left."
This is not unlike those of us who are moderate Republicans, and want nothing whatsoever to do with the extreme fundamentalist right that seems to be taking over our party. If I've ever agreed with Obama about anything, it's his unwillingness to identify with the extreme side of his party, although it must be said that Moore, Soros, Sarandon and the like were probably responsible for his being elected in the first place. That, and the abject hatred of Dubya and Dick, and, by extension, everything they stood for. He finds himself in a tough spot now, having accepted their money while not espousing their ideologies. If he were to step up and say what he really believes instead of trying to please everybody, it would pretty much trample any hope he might have for re-election. Interesting conundrum.
-- 21:32, 19 January 2010 (GMT)
Oh, Shmuel. Consistency is the enemy when what you really want to do is SHAKE YOUR FISTS, LIKE SO.
-- 22:01, 19 January 2010 (GMT)
Mel:
I was going to argue with the thesis that most of those jobs were gone for good, or at least to argue that equivalent replacement jobs are still possible, but then I re-read and one of those quotes you added basically says the same thing. So we will consider that argument as having been made already.
I keep wondering what would happen if anybody ever managed to get a real centrist political party kick-started. I know the deck is stacked heavily against new political parties, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be done.
-- 22:48, 19 January 2010 (GMT) Mel 17:50, 19 January 2010 (EST)
Iain:
I hesitate to jump in here, as I hail from The Dark Side
And now I will forever think of you as Darth Bunny ... which is a very strange mental image, actually.
If he were to step up and say what he really believes instead of trying to please everybody, it would pretty much trample any hope he might have for re-election. Interesting conundrum.
For all that I'm pretty sure I'd hate big chunks of what he'd want to do, I kind of wish he'd just say, "You know what? It's pretty clear that unless the economy rebounds in a way that it's not likely to do, I'm going to be a one-term president. Therefore, I'm going to lay out my full four year agenda, I'm going to say what I think is the right thing to do, and I'm going to go for it." It wouldn't get him anywhere, I suspect -- it would utterly horrify the Democrats, and the Republicans wouldn't even have to be the party of "no" any more, because the Democrats would join them in trying to stifle this guy until they could get him gone and get back to business as usual.
-- 23:05, 19 January 2010 (GMT)
Peebles: That was uncalled for. I don't see how pointing out what I see as the realities, without even any particular rage about it, qualifies as shaking my fists.
Shmuel: To a certain extent I do draw that distinction. Senators have to get their hands muddy a lot more than presidents do. But, in fact, my big problem is that it's hard for me to see with any certainty WHAT way Obama is trying to steer the ship. If he were aiming in a direction I dislike, I'd cuss; if he were aiming in a direction I like, I'd cheer - but he seems to have spent most of his first year ineffectually trying to keep everyone happy and not really accomplishing much of anything. Where The Economist and I differ, in fact, is they're far more pleased with his record so far than I am. (They're not HUGELY pleased, you understand, but the modest amount of pleased they are is still more than zero, which is about where I am.)
During the election, my cry over and over at Obama was "What is your platform? Where is your platform? What the hell do you stand for?" He wouldn't say then and he's not saying now. I am beginning to suspect he doesn't have one.
Mel: The key phrase is "equivalent replacement job." If you accept working at Wal-Mart as being an equivalent replacement job for putting rod A in slot B at the car factory, you're golden. But many people will not, and frankly, I can't say I blame them. A lot of people are going to find themselves settling for a whole lot less. I will maybe say more about this later, but I just got home from a long trek in bad weather and I'm tired.
-- 23:21, 19 January 2010 (GMT)
My sympathies about the work situation. Times like those are not pretty.
-- 23:56, 19 January 2010 (GMT)
Sorry. Not so much you, Col, as Andrew Sullivan, who I still can't believe you like.
I'm still pleased with Obama. I think I said it here, several months ago, that I wanted a president who equivocated and acknowledged the complexities of the world instead of an ideologue. We know where ideologues take us -- we had one for eight years -- and I'm not eager to head back down that road.
I don't understand why everyone is willing to call Obama's presidency a failure after just one year. Here are some of his successes:
1. Many economists fault the Obama administration for not seeing the financial crisis before it occurred (fairly or not), but the consensus seems pretty clear that he averted a long, crippling depression. If you hear criticism from academic economists of his handling of the economy, it's that he didn't do more more quickly.
2. He has begun the de-escalation of Iraq and invested forces into Afghanistan, where the attention should have been for the last eight years, and where the political situation is clearly totally out of control.
3. He has made the climate change talks in Copenhagen meaningful by NOT exempting the world's largest economy and biggest polluter from the discussion.
I'm okay with the issues where my colleagues on the left seem to think Obama has been an abysmal failure. I thought Obama's campaign promise to temporarily escalate in Afghanistan was a great one, and I'm glad to see him deliver. I think Obama's lack of movement on gay rights is a good tactical move, and as much as it pains me to see him make it, I understand the arguments for it.
The one issue I think Obama failed to deliver what he set out to deliver was health care. I'm not a savvy enough political thinker to comment intelligently on it, except to say that of the things I've mentioned, this is the issue on which Obama behaved most like an ideologue; it was clear from day one exactly what kind of plan he had in mind. I think "lack of direction" and was the least of his problems here.
Nor do I think it's fair to blame midterm Democratic losses on Obama. You know, it's a midterm election during bad economic times. Of course it's going to be a tough row to hoe for the President's party. That's a big duh.
-- 00:05, 20 January 2010 (GMT)
I like Sullivan for the same reason you like Obama: He thinks. Even when he comes up with a position I disagree with, he's given the matter some thought.
(Although, after months of reading him, I have also concluded he can be a big ol' drama queen at times. However, it's awfully drafty in this glass house.)
If you add, "Finally, an American president the rest of the world doesn't hate!" to your list, you would basically have the Economist list of Obama's successes. Their points 1 and 2 could almost be yours word-for-word. And that's fine. I agree. My main gripe is that he almost seems to be stumbling into doing the right thing; I didn't expect him to work miracles, not the first year, not the fourth, but I did expect him to AIM. I still can't shake the suspicion that his Afghanistan policy is accidental; and that's only the warm-up act, the test case. The real issue is Iran, and it's going to come to a head during THIS presidency. I am not filled with confidence, there.
You understand, I'm NOT calling Obama a failure. I am disappointed with him, which ain't nearly the same thing. It's way too early to call him a failure.
-- 00:25, 20 January 2010 (GMT)
Iain, here ya go. A little self-portrait.
And for the record, I, too, would like to see a President who said what he meant and tried to do what he said. But with the way things are parceled out today, choosing that route would never have gotten him elected at all. I am sensing a rising tide of moderation and centrism that could evolve into a third party. I've already quit sending money to the RNC, because I no longer believe that they and their extreme fundamentalist viewpoint represent me. Puts me in a quandary at voting time, because the Democrat Party appears to be run by the moonbat extremists in Hollywood. What's a person to do?
-- 01:00, 20 January 2010 (GMT)
A friend from Maine sent me this message:
" The Boston Globe calls the election for Martha Coakley: 50-49. They actually did. They put up an interactive map. It's been taken down now, but they put it up eight hours before the polls closed and you could roll your cursor over any county, any city, and find the results. They pulled it down, but they have Coakley eking out a 50-49 victory. Let's just see what happens tonight if it turns out that way and the Globe knew about it eight hours before the polls closed."
Have you heard anything about this? I find it hard to believe.
-- 01:25, 20 January 2010 (GMT)
It did happen, but it seems reasonably clear that they were testing the feature out and accidentally went live with the test data.
-- 02:08, 20 January 2010 (GMT)
My main gripe is that he almost seems to be stumbling into doing the right thing; I didn't expect him to work miracles, not the first year, not the fourth, but I did expect him to AIM. I still can't shake the suspicion that his Afghanistan policy is accidental; and that's only the warm-up act, the test case.
So, out of curiosity, I googled for "obama campaign promises" and turned up this, which indicates that escalating in Afghanistan was, indeed, an explicit campaign promise that he kept. And more than that, in general, I think the data indicate that Obama is essentially the President that we elected him to be, with a few course corrections as one might expect would be necessary.
So. I don't know that disappointment with Obama is really warranted, either. You got what he said he was going to be. You thought his election was going to be a panacea for the left? That's putting an awful lot of weight on one election.
Which, I'm sorry to say, is why I'm also not getting too worked up about the MA election, either. It's a disappointment, but (1) Democrats still control 59 seats (well, 58 seats and Lieberman, but still), and (2) it's Massachusetts, which could no more stay Red than Indiana could stay Blue.
-- 03:03, 20 January 2010 (GMT)
You know, actually, I've just polled my brain cells and I can't get too worked up about this election either. I'm a little sad, because I hate waste, and watching someone squander an enormous advantage through her own ineptitude certainly qualifies as that. But I'm not breaking out the ashes and sackcloth. What does rile me is the behavior of the opposition. I can no longer maintain even the slightest slim fragment of a thin shadow of the delusion that the Republican party is at all interested in any kind of forward motion. On them all I wish a tsuris.
-- 03:32, 20 January 2010 (GMT)
Ah, so you don't think we are aggravated and troubled enough as it is! Nice.
Peebles, I could cite at least ten different instances of speeches during the campaign, right up to the acceptance speech, in which he promised that deliberations on health care, among other things, would be televised on C-Span for all the world to see. Hasn't happened. I personally don't believe he ever intended for that to happen. It would be disastrous to his plan and he knows it. C-Span has implored him to reconsider, but so far, no.
So, Afghanistan yes, C-Span no. One can obviously put no store in campaign rhetoric. Ya gotta say what'll get you elected. And as Iain pointed out, if he's already resigned himself to being a one-term president, he can do whatever he pleases, whether he said so or not.
-- 06:56, 20 January 2010 (GMT)
I'm going to sound like Col for a second and say, Bunny, you should follow that link I put up above, because I think it's good fodder for thought. The C-Span thing is listed as one of 15 broken campaign promises, compared to 95 promises kept, 33 compromises and 350 either in the works or stalled. I can't speak to what Obama intended when he made his promises, but this is not the track record of a liar.
The reason I love data like this -- and god do I love a good wonky data set -- is that cherry-picking anecdotes can always get you whatever conclusion you want. But it's the data in the aggregate that paint the whole picture, and so far Obama's track record doesn't support him being disingenuous on the campaign trail.
-- 14:40, 20 January 2010 (GMT)
Busted! You're correct, Pebbles, I did not read the link. I assumed it was about the topic you mentioned and gave you credit for a win. C-Span was a loss, so I figured we were even, for the moment. I'm still watching. Only history will decide what kind of president Barack Obama is/was. Gotta wait and see.
-- 17:39, 20 January 2010 (GMT)
More stuff. All of this is Sullivan's, although not all of it is actually his words.
One of the things I do unexpectedly find myself having in common with Sullivan - and the main reason I'm quoting his stuff and not anyone else in the enormous pile of commentary I've waded through from the last two days, retroactively - is that I have now come to believe both parties are utterly beyond hope. As he notes here:
Or, the more concise version he quotes from Andrew Sprung:
The difference between us is, Sullivan is somehow managing to maintain optimism in Obama, whereas I never had as much optimism in the guy as some of my peers did in the first place.
But how deep does Sullivan's optimism actually go? In laying out (to me feeble) alternatives for Obama on health care, he adds:
Finally, there's this one, which I would like to quote in full but cannot. Ignore Sullivan here if you like; the bulk of it is a letter he received from a reader. It is the reader, not Sullivan, I quote here:
Now there's a person who understands what I have been trying to say: Everything is changing. All this squabbling is meant to obscure the fact that we are undergoing the most massive social and political shift since World War II. Putting off the realities can only work for so long, and I wish our national politicians would stop putting them off and start facing them. We ARE going to get poorer. We ARE going to run out of oil. We ARE going to have to learn to collectively lower our standards of living. The entire basis of our economy IS going to change. Our ambitions ARE going to have to be scaled back. All of this is already happening. And neither party is doing a good job of facing up to it - it's just that one is open about its denial and its obfuscation, and the other is not.
-- 16:53, 21 January 2010 (GMT)
I assume then, that you also agree at least partially with the writer to Sullivan who said:
I'm not sure I agree 100% here, especially about there being no political center anymore. In fact, that might be exactly the problem - the center has gotten so big that centrism as a political philosophy no longer has a space in the current dynamic. The two parties are having lots of identity problems by sticking to the "liberal" and "conservative" labels, without (in part deliberately, I'm sure) defining the scope of their platform. Social? Fiscal? Economic? Constitutional interpretation?
You can't be on the "left" or the "right" of an n-dimensional space, and I expect that to a large extent the general population exists some distance away from the boundaries of that space. But no one's at the "center" of that space; and one of the reasons new parties have a hard time taking hold is that the fervor exists on the edges of the space, and single-issue parties just can't attract enough attention. Republicans have managed to turn Christianity-infused social conservatism into a large organization (or maybe the large organization turned into that), and the Democrats - well, maybe they are actually closer to the middle, since they don't seem to have particularly strong feelings about much of anything cohesive these days.
This is where other countries have "solved" the problem in part by having more limited-scope political parties, who have to come together in coalitions to govern. The coalitions then come and go over time as the population's center of mass shifts, without requiring the parties themselves to shift. Perfect? Hell no. Imagine if we had that here, and the governing coalition collapsed less than a year into a new President's term. Then it's pretty easy for a strong minority to take over. Then again...
ETA: Fixed my quote block.
-- 18:12, 21 January 2010 (GMT)
You might be onto something there. If the problem is that the center has gotten so big that it has become uselessly amorphous, that would go a long way toward explaining the extreme radicalization on the far right and left. In other words, the center gets blurrier and bigger and the ends of the numberline try to race away from the middle at top speed in an effort to have an identity.
I read about Europe's coalition governments all the time. I, too, am not sure they offer a better solution. Neither is Angela Merkel, at this time, so I'm told.
-- 19:30, 21 January 2010 (GMT)
the Democrats - well, maybe they are actually closer to the middle, since they don't seem to have particularly strong feelings about much of anything cohesive these days.
Back in 1985, Doonesbury speculated about what would happen if you transplanted the heart of a liberal into a conservative... this was the result.
-- 07:56, 22 January 2010 (GMT)
Iain:
Obama needs to tack left and be a hardliner.
So, since he's neither a left-winger of any sort, nor a hardliner of any sort, his presidency has become pretty much pointless, then.
-- 18:03, 19 January 2010 (GMT)