How much does it take...?

[billbaloney]

It's a little early to give up entirely; we may see a starkly different Congress after the midterm elections, and no one yet knows how the Supreme Court will treat this legislation.

Still, I imagine those of us who lobbied our representatives to vote against this bill are as scared and as frustrated as I am. And what you non-Americans may not see in your own coverage is that this bill has opened some eyes in middle America: some of those folks we think of as myopic, corn-fed, Fox-news-watching Kansas residents did *not* approve this legislation. And they're alarmed.

The great unknown is how long it will take to shift these middle-class middle Americans away from a stance that runs counter to their own economic interests. As long as they get scared and fooled into voting Republican on the moral scapegoat issues such as abortion and gay marriage, they will continue to elect representatives who push the country in the direction we've seen over the last six years.

[billbaloney]

Twenty minutes later, I happened across this Washington Post article, illustrating the exact switch -- in Kansas, no less -- that I was talking about.

[fryke]

... "And what you non-Americans may not see in your own coverage..." ... While I can't speak for _all_ of us non-Americans: We _do_ get some American TV over here, and not all of our own TV stations are radically biased in every which way. The choice of where you get your news and analysis always depends on the individual, of course.

Although I'm happy that this sounds like a good omen for the midterms, it also strikes me as odd, a little. A bit like: "Oh, we're going to lose votes, let's jump to the Democrats, win the elections over there and then go on working like the good old GOPpers we really are." ...

Let's assume that change is coming in the midterms. Would this mean a _great_ difference in how Bush et al. work the world? Or would it simply hinder any and all actions and leave the US in a state where the field is wide open again for the presidential elections in 2008?

[billbaloney]

Re: coverage, my point is not that external coverage of US politics is biased (for surely, internal coverage is often more biased), but that these stories of the slow shifts in middle America may not make great waves outside our domestic news sources. For now, at least.

The broader view of these shifts in, e.g., Kansas, from Republican to Democrat, is actually that they are shifts back to the Democrats, who until the sixties were the traditional party of the rural working class. The massive success of the Republicans' "Southern Strategy" in the sixties and seventies essentially proved that moral and cultural scare tactics can move middle America away from their own economic self-interest, which is why the Rs have stuck to their methods for forty years now.

The two-party system does a bad job of capturing the broad middle swath of voters. That these candidates, and their constituents, may switch parties every few decades doesn't show a radical change in their own politics so much as a failure of one party or another to represent them in some important way.

[dlloyd]

The two-party system is deeply flawed in any case. So often everything degenerates into 'us vs. them', to the point that beating 'them' usually appears to be a greater priority than the common good. Both parties spend so much time trying to smear the opposite 'side' that the really important things never get done.
I am extremely jaded as to politicians in general. The Democrats used to be appealing for their views, but lately we're been told 'vote for us because we're better, because we're not "them"' instead of something truly useful like 'vote for us because we have this plan to end world hunger in three years, and the other plan to use the United Nations to eradicate terrorism through peaceful means.'
Most politicians are so corrupted by the system that there's really very little difference between the two parties now. Anyone with real convictions, which actually make sense, is trampled on by being 'too weak.' For example, Denver, CO, has an absolutely wonderful mayor at the moment. I have met him personally, and he is one of the few politicians whom I honestly like. He does what he does because he knows it's the right thing. Of course, this is his first political position (be was a businessman before, and not in a way that would allow him to be 'pre-corrupted' by that system) and he decided against running for governor this year, even though I'm quite certain he would have won had he done so.
In general, I think anyone who actually wants the kind of power our senators have ought to be kept away from it at all possible costs. This system was begun out of greed (removal of high British taxes,) and has continued through greed, and while I think it's certainly not the best system possible, I think it definitely has far more potential than we're currently tapping. One of the first things that has to go is the entire idea of 'career politicians.' The original system called for Joe Smith to come out of his little farm in Ohio and spend four years as president, and then go right back to Ohio. I know you'll say that's not feasible, but think about why. Here's a hint: because the system has been carefully modified to the point that it's no longer feasible.

I think the very first communists had a good idea. Before that one also was taken over by politicians.

[eric2006]

It's funny when you look back in history; the Founding Fathers were very cautious to avoid the creation of political parties, not one mention of them inn the Constitution. They succeded, too, for Washington, and partly John Adam's term. Of course, factions began to develop over many issues, and even without a party system, divides would occur. The divides just happened to be over the power of the national government, and the first parties, the Federalists and the Anti-Fedralists - later called the Republicans (not to be confused with the modern Republican party), formed. John Adams, a Federalist, took office after Washington. During Adam's term the Federalists experienced increased popularity as a result of the Quasi War with France, and they took a majority in Congress. The Federalists proceeded to pass the Alien and Sedition act, which limited immigration, and made it possible to arrest dissenters of the government (sound familiar?). In what was to be the ugliest campaign in American history, the Federalists lost office mainly because of these acts.
They always say history repeats itself..

[dlloyd]

...but how much? Back then I bet a larger percentage of people felt more strongly about more things. Not to mention that they hadn't been subjected to a hundred years of 'dumbing down,' as we have now. The problem today is the vast majority of people are relatively uneducated and simply don't care. And that is incredibly dangerous in a democracy.

[lbj]

Originally Posted by dlloyd

The problem today is the vast majority of people are relatively uneducated and simply don't care.

This is not new at all. The vast majority of people have always been relatively uneducated and seemingly apathetic. I say seemingly only because they are generally more concerned over keeping a roof over their heads, food on the table, and clothing on their backs. What comes across as apathy is actually concern over more personal matters.

Nothing's really changed. The players may be different but the game is the same.