Why politicians don't solve problems.
Many years ago, before my internet connection rendered it obsolete, I was watching the Weather Channel to try to find out what the weather would be on the coming Saturday. (Had something big planned, I'm sure.)
So, I sat in front of that TV for fifteen minutes waiting for the Weather Channel to give me the weekend forecast, but they kept talking about the weather elsewhere and running ad after ad after ad, all the while promising that local weather was "coming up next."
As I watched and waited, growing more and more frustrated, I suddenly had an epiphany. It is not in the Weather Channel's interests to actually supply me with the information I was seeking. As soon as I got the weekend forecast, I would stop watching their channel, stop watching their advertisements, and turn to something else.
Actually, it was in their best interest to keep me in a continual state of anticipation that they would supply me with the solution for my problem if I would just stay tuned a little longer.
This is why politicians don't actually solve problems. If they solve the problems, we tune out, stop giving them money and stop voting for them. This has been a genius political stroke, used more frequently by the Republicans, utilized over the past three decades.
Let's look at Roe. I would argue that it is really not in the greater Republican interest to have Roe v Wade overturned. For thirty years, the Republicans have recieved as loyal a voting block as possible by promising to resolve this issue. If they were to ever actually overturn Roe, not only would the anti-Roe voters grow less passionate, but the center of the country would likely turn against them.
Roe is just one example, probably a little too charged with the Alito hearings going on, but this also applies in almost every other area.
Is it in George Bush's interests to actually defeat terrorism? It's a fine line. Certainly, I wouldn't argue that he would be hoping for another attack, but at the same time, he certainly benefits by having the fear hang over America. Polls still show that Bush and Republicans' highest ratings come in relation to the war on terror.
If you look at the Pew poll yesterday, the Dems outpolled the Repubs on EVERY OTHER ISSUE. Foreign policy, Iraq, the economy, health care.... Everything except terrorism. With Bush's approve/disapprove numbers at 38/54, that one single issue becomes the last leg propping up his presidency.
So, the question is, "Is Bush better off actually resolving terrorism? Or is better off pulling a "weather channel" and creating the belief that he, and only he, will provide the solution just after the next commercial break?"
I'm not arguing that Bush is intentionally tanking the terror issue, but at the same time, it would be a hard argument, after the 2004 election, to say that the Bush administration is unaware of the political benefits of its continuation.
The underlying problem with this "weather channel" model is that when it breaks down, it is no longer fixable. Iraq, as a political issue, is in the process of breaking down right now. A shifting majority are no longer willing to believe that Bush has a solution coming.
The weather channel never won me back after that day of frustration and understanding despite their best efforts, and I just wonder how deep the disbelief really is in America right now. Polls show that political independents across America are turning off the Bush/Republican channel right now. The question is, will they come back?
Also, I still get the feeling that Bush is teetering right now in public opinion, like a wobbly boxer who has taken alot of jabs. He's fatigued, he's distracted by the pain from all the punches he's taken so far, and he's covering up, occasionally blindly throwing his favorite punch "patriotism" out of habit.
I'm wondering if there will be a knockout blow, and if so, where it will come from.
(Allright, I know this rambling diatribe stuff isn't why you come here, but I just can't find any news source that I want to blog on today. So, we make due.)
So, I sat in front of that TV for fifteen minutes waiting for the Weather Channel to give me the weekend forecast, but they kept talking about the weather elsewhere and running ad after ad after ad, all the while promising that local weather was "coming up next."
As I watched and waited, growing more and more frustrated, I suddenly had an epiphany. It is not in the Weather Channel's interests to actually supply me with the information I was seeking. As soon as I got the weekend forecast, I would stop watching their channel, stop watching their advertisements, and turn to something else.
Actually, it was in their best interest to keep me in a continual state of anticipation that they would supply me with the solution for my problem if I would just stay tuned a little longer.
This is why politicians don't actually solve problems. If they solve the problems, we tune out, stop giving them money and stop voting for them. This has been a genius political stroke, used more frequently by the Republicans, utilized over the past three decades.
Let's look at Roe. I would argue that it is really not in the greater Republican interest to have Roe v Wade overturned. For thirty years, the Republicans have recieved as loyal a voting block as possible by promising to resolve this issue. If they were to ever actually overturn Roe, not only would the anti-Roe voters grow less passionate, but the center of the country would likely turn against them.
Roe is just one example, probably a little too charged with the Alito hearings going on, but this also applies in almost every other area.
Is it in George Bush's interests to actually defeat terrorism? It's a fine line. Certainly, I wouldn't argue that he would be hoping for another attack, but at the same time, he certainly benefits by having the fear hang over America. Polls still show that Bush and Republicans' highest ratings come in relation to the war on terror.
If you look at the Pew poll yesterday, the Dems outpolled the Repubs on EVERY OTHER ISSUE. Foreign policy, Iraq, the economy, health care.... Everything except terrorism. With Bush's approve/disapprove numbers at 38/54, that one single issue becomes the last leg propping up his presidency.
So, the question is, "Is Bush better off actually resolving terrorism? Or is better off pulling a "weather channel" and creating the belief that he, and only he, will provide the solution just after the next commercial break?"
I'm not arguing that Bush is intentionally tanking the terror issue, but at the same time, it would be a hard argument, after the 2004 election, to say that the Bush administration is unaware of the political benefits of its continuation.
The underlying problem with this "weather channel" model is that when it breaks down, it is no longer fixable. Iraq, as a political issue, is in the process of breaking down right now. A shifting majority are no longer willing to believe that Bush has a solution coming.
The weather channel never won me back after that day of frustration and understanding despite their best efforts, and I just wonder how deep the disbelief really is in America right now. Polls show that political independents across America are turning off the Bush/Republican channel right now. The question is, will they come back?
Also, I still get the feeling that Bush is teetering right now in public opinion, like a wobbly boxer who has taken alot of jabs. He's fatigued, he's distracted by the pain from all the punches he's taken so far, and he's covering up, occasionally blindly throwing his favorite punch "patriotism" out of habit.
I'm wondering if there will be a knockout blow, and if so, where it will come from.
(Allright, I know this rambling diatribe stuff isn't why you come here, but I just can't find any news source that I want to blog on today. So, we make due.)
posted by mikevotes at
4:03 PM
6 Comments:
I hadn't heard of her appointment. Most of the focus has been on Richard Mier's neice(?) being put in charge of immigration and customs, and the two recess appointments to the FEC.
Viveca Novak's husband(witness tampering) and one of the top guys who purged the Fla voter roles in 2000.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 6:28 PM
Mike, My first reaction to this was that you have such a sanguine outlook on Bush: "I'm not arguing that Bush is intentionally tanking the terror issue..."
My second reaction was, of course the SOB is intentionally keeping the issue alive. Why do you think Osama is still out there somewhere? Because he personifies the War on Terror, a shadowy figure out there in the woods, so we gotta wiretap you and read your email and you gotta vote for Republicans because we are the only thing between you and the Osamas of the world.
Bush can show you a picture of Osama to scare the hell out of you but not Osama himself in a cage which would no longer be scary.
But then I thought, Bush aint that smart.
But then I thought, but Cheney is. And Karl.
Pardon me for being cynical. Their whole political strategy is to keep us all frightened.
By
NEWSGUY, at 9:05 PM
Also, your line, "I still get the feeling that Bush is teetering right now in public opinion, like a wobbly boxer..."
Maybe the wobbly part is not from public opinion, but from Jack Daniels.
By
NEWSGUY, at 9:08 PM
Mike, you have nailed it. I have long held the same feelings. The political Right in America has never really been concerned with moral issues or "values". Their only concern is and always has been very mundane - money. All that talk about values is just lip service to trick Christians and culturally conservative people into voting for them.
American Christians have had the wool pulled down over their eyes for a long time. Even now they don't give any sign of waking up. They live in perpetual fear that gays, drugs, and abortions will take over the pulpit and cast them all into hell.
By
Justin, at 12:20 AM
Newsguy, Perhaps I didn't phrase that well. What I was tryimg to say is that I don't believe that Bush is INTENTIONALLY undermining the war on terror. For instance, I think the not getting Bin Laden at Tora Bora was incompetence, not intention.
I'm certainly not trying to argue that the Bush admin isn't working the issue politically for everything they can. And the rising profile of Zarqawi is largely a political decision to create another villian in the piece.
And, funny line on the wobbly, but if I were Bush, I'd be be drinking too. Bush's whole life has been trying to prove to his father that he's capable, seeking approval. And that is being shown to be false on the biggest of public stages.
And Justin, yeah. Somehow, and I don't know why, the manipulation of religion really bothers me. I find the bigotry unforgivable, but the manipulation of relgious beliefs bothers me in some specific way.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 7:18 AM
Yeah, it was probably in the late eighties/early nineties, but the lesson was so strong that I remember it vividly today.
And this is blog world, you don't have to worry about disclosure unless you're the poster.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 8:15 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home