A look ahead at the dismal political picture

.
I must make clear that, despite the gloomy title of this post, it is imperative that everyone takes as positive a view of the future as possible, merely as a survival strategy.  If you don't want to do that, you may as well stop reading!

Understand the situation
I, together with a lot of other liberals, have been going on autopilot for a long time.  We often look at others and deplore how they use rules of thumb to make most of their decisions.  It's often harder to stop doing that when we're doing it.  The two-party system encourages this Us/Them view of the political landscape, but unfortunately, multi-party political dynamics are less stable, and creating coalitions of several small parties, and holding the unwieldy coalition together is an art that takes a long time to learn, and seems to give very little return for the effort.

The present-day Republican and Democrat parties are also unhappy coalitions that are battling decades-long prejudices and misperceptions in order to hold together.  Just imagine these problem being aggravated by the coalitions reconfiguring themselves every new election!

Let's look at the Republicans.  It is the home to a large number of groups:
Fiscal Conservatives: these are opposed to big government spending, and high taxes.  Conceivably there are those who are only opposed to high taxes, and others who are only opposed to big government, but let's not worry about them.
Christian Fundamentalists: these are very confused people, on the whole, but there are some who are quite moderate and balanced in their outlook except that they insist on Biblical principles, protecting the Holy Land from infidels, they're against using artificial contraception (some of them), opposed to government sponsoring of abortions (some of them), opposed to teaching Evolution in science classes (a few of them), and opposed to the strict separation of Church and State (most of them).  So this is not a unified category of people, but they support each other and make common cause.
Hawks: these are the ones who want a very aggressive foreign policy.  Some of them are willing to pursue diplomacy a little further than others, but they take the fundamental position that the rights of Americans trumps the rights of all other groups.  They may not realize that this is what their various principles amounts to, but logically that is where it all flows from.  Some of these are driven by Business interests: we must back our economic interests with military might whenever necessary (or convenient).  Some of these are simply convinced that American supremacy is good for the whole planet, because we're the sanest, most enlightened nation on Earth, and everybody knows that.  We give women the most rights of any nation, etc, etc.
Libertarians: I'm lumping the Gun Enthusiasts, the Legalize Marijuana lobby, the Business First folks, and the Anti-Health-Care-Reform people into this group.  They not only want little or no government control over anything, but they don't want to pay any taxes either.  They are openly hostile to the Republicans, but they vote with them, because they view Democrats as generally favoring more government than the GOP.

Now let's look at the Democrats.  We don't often do this, but the time has come.
Pacifists: These are those of us who want to avoid military action at all costs.  The Democrats have often started wars; in fact, they have arguably got the US into more wars than the GOP.  But generally the Democrats have been viewed as more friendly towards pacifists.
Pro Choice Lobby:  Since the Christian Fundamentalists and the so-called Pro Lifers are in the opposite camp, the Pro Choicists have sought a home with the Dems.  This makes sense because the Democrats have generally stood for
Gender Equality: The GOP has traditionally opposed the progress of equal rights legislation (and they're opposing it now).  Gender equality should not be an issue in this day and age, but tragically, it is.
The Social Safety Net lobby:  Of all the principles of the Democrats that I support, this one is chief.  The basic requirements for life must be provided to everyone, regardless of how productive they are.  I will be satisfied with lower levels of support than most others, in terms of financial welfare payments.  But I support higher levels of free housing, education, food subsidy, healthcare, etc.
The Environmentalists and the Conservationists.  This group, too, should not have to exist today, but the Business First group keeps wanting to exploit energy resources at the cost of air and water quality, and the pro-environmentalists have nowhere to go but the Democrat Party.
Pro Gun-Control lobby.  The NRA has traditionally supported the GOP.
Rationalists.  These are the people who strongly favor separation of Church and State, teaching Evolution in school, supporting Historians in their attempts to revise traditional biases in US education, even at the price of embarrassing the White Majority.

In addition to the groups whom we can expect to vote with the two major parties fairly consistently, there are other groups who are less predictable.

Apoliticals. Many young friends have told me that they do not vote because they are confused about the options, or disgusted with the parties, or with particular personalities who dominate the political landscape at the local level.

Anti-intellectuals.  There has always been a stubborn group of people who are suspicious of anyone whom they regard as highly-educated.  They get confused by big words, and by political sophistry, and are suspicious of their local religious leaders, so they stay aloof from politics, unless they can be persuaded at the last minute.  Leaders from the two parties often make a deliberate play for these folks by using down-home language and ideas, though of course our political leaders are usually moderately well-educated, except in obvious cases like George W. Bush.

Be aware of the changes in the political process
One of the hugest changes we observe is the rise of apolitical political professionals.  They are found in the rank of pollsters, campaign managers, spin doctors and media specialists, lobbyists, and independent think-tanks.  It is not rare to find a campaign manager in one party leave it to join the campaign of another party.  I particularly detest the professionalization of politics, the increase in the size of Political Science departments in colleges and universities.  Students are increasingly viewing political science as a discipline which could lead to quick money right out of college, and possibly a lobbying job after that, and then an early retirement.  A significant majority of these are not particularly interested in the public welfare, as a political leader should be, in my mind.

The upshot of all this is that the political process has become objectivized and cynical.  We accused cynical politicians as adopting an attitude of The Ends Justify The Means.  But now it seems almost a universal attitude.  Let's face it: professional politicians are being viewed more unfavorably than at any time in history.  Decent politicians are getting out of politics, and rascals with get-rich-quick ideas and Fool-all-the-people-all-the-time ideas are getting in.  The kids who come forward in college as student leaders are tending toward slimeballicity.  Used car dealers are looking good, compared with politicians at any level.

Voting is just one major responsibility.  There are others
It is no less important today to vote than it was in the past.  But, since trustworthy candidates are so hard to find, and since media consultants are so effective at besmirching the name of anyone who they oppose, few people are willing to run for office.  We must come up with a plan to combat this; the simplest plan is to get better at training young people at candidacy, and at resisting the efforts of hostile media attacks.

This post is at least in part inspired by a recent video clip by Jon Stewart.  He was responding to an attack by Fox News that he distorted the facts and lied so often that he was beginning to make inroads on their viewer base.

In contrast, Jon Stewart is one of the most reliable news sources, and one who is most astute at discerning the implications of a particular event or action.  Unlike Fox News, I do not regard the political implications of events and actions as being in the eye of the beholder.  Some statements and actions are self-serving, and Jon Stewart has been effective at pointing these out.  He is consistent.  He is accurate.  He is generally moderate in his denouncements.  Compared to the excesses of the Fox News crew and Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin, Chris Christie and other Republican jokers, Jon Stewart is as decent and straight arrow as they come.  But Fox News accuses him of lying.

Other spin doctors are more subtle.  But one can easily see that the relentless onslaught of Fox News can succeed in intimidating any liberal from running for office.  So all altruistic young potential political leaders are running from office.

Money In Politics
The more money is allowed to pervade the political process, the more unscrupulous spin doctors can distort the facts, and distract the public away from issues, towards personalities.  The (GOP-voting) public has notoriously been forgetful of GOP gaffes, and gone on to worship their questionable candidates.  Mit Romney appears to be offering to run again, despite the statements he made that were video-recorded at a fundraiser, which one would have assumed would knock him out of politics for good.  But the sheer money brought to bear on the media distorts the facts; it becomes all about how skillfully the message is put together, not the core factual contents of the message, which might be vacuous.  The Supreme Court, to its everlasting shame, approved unlimited funds to be spent on Campaign Finances, which is a ruling that must be repealed.

[To be continued, if I have the energy, which I probably won't.]