I’ve been in kind of a funk lately and I’ve hard a hard time understanding why. With the recent election results, I thought I would feel more elated. Certainly there was a lot of good things that happened and I don’t want to discount them, but there’s still an underlying malaise that is affecting me. I guess now that it isn’t one party running the government as a monolith that I can see more clearly what’s going on.
It’s always been puzzling to me that there are only two (viable) parties in the United States. How can 300 million people be adequately represented by just two choices? It’s like saying the world’s hydration needs can be met solely by Coca-Cola or Pepsi. There are passionate defenders and advocates for Coke and equally passionate advocates for Pepsi. But aren’t they mostly the same? And aren’t they both just artificially sweetened, factory-produced, nutritionally deficient alternatives to what your body really needs (water)?
There are two parties and two corresponding camps in the media, whether commercial mainstream or bloggers. Some people call them the “conservative” and “liberal” camps, others use different labels, I frankly don’t give a crap what term you use. But what the entire political process reminds me of (in this country) is a football game.
I watch about one football game a year and that’s maybe. I have no antipathy towards the sport; mostly I just see it as a hobby I’m not terribly interested in. But in this country there are LOTS of people who are huge fans of the sport. They dress up like their favorite team on the day when that team is playing. They know all kinds of statistics and facts about their favorite team. They will enthusiastically discuss it for hours. They will spend lots of money in support of being a fan, whether it’s official apparel or tickets on the game, etc.
And for every fan of team X, there is an equally enthusiastic fan of team Y. And when team X plays team Y, the two fans are theoretically “opposed” to one another. They scream and shout and wave flags (or what have you) but in my mind, they are more alike than they are different. They are enthusiasts in equal measure, it’s only the team they support which is different.
And what is the team that they support anyway? A collection of people hired by extremely wealthy business owners. The employees often switch teams. Sometimes the team itself is sold or bought by different business people. Sometimes the team itself moves to a different city altogether, or changes its name. But the “true fan” supports the team, even though there may be nothing consistent or permanent about the team from year to year except the color of their uniforms. The names, places, players, logos, coaches, owner and stadium may change but somehow the fan remains loyal or supportive of team X. Just as the second fan remains equally enthusiastic about team Y.
Team Y, in this extended metaphor, might be the Republicans. It might be the neoconservatives. It might be the evangelical Christian values. It might be just “conservatives” or “red staters”. And just like a football team, the players might change (out with Rumsfeld, in with Gates), the logos might change (SS must be privatized, SS is fine as it is) etc. but the fan remains loyal.
Team X is the other team, the “liberals”, the “progressives”, the Democrats, the “blue staters” etc. The fans of this team are just as loyal as fans of team Y, it just doesn’t seem that way sometimes since team X fans tend to spend more time “armchair quarterbacking” and second guessing the coach’s and players’ decisions. Team Y fans tend to be more enthusiastic cheerleaders while Team X fans tend to feel that providing input and analysis is a better demonstration of their fandom and affiliation with the team.
But you know what? It’s not enough for Team X to prevail. It’s true I support them far more than Team Y and that’s why I’m glad they won the last game (November elections). But it’s still not enough. I’m happy for the win but that’s not why I’m in a funk.
By the way, as Billmon astutely pointed out, about 1/3rd of the country is staunchly pro-Team X to the end, 1/3rd staunchly pro-Team Y and one third are “fair weather fans” who back whichever team is winning. In 2003, the “fair weather fan” segment was pro-Team Y and now they’re pro-Team X. And they’ll switch whenever Team Y wins a few games by the way.
The problem isn’t Team Y really (they cheat! yes I know). The problem isn’t convincing the 1/3rd of the population to become fans of Team X. The problem is the game itself.
Football (the real sport, not this metaphor) is fine. If you never watch it in your entire life you’ll be just fine. It is the game of politics itself is what keeps me in this funk.
Bush himself said it most accurately when he said “you’re either with us or against us”. Team Y’s response in the last game (November elections) was roughly the same, “if you’re against him, you’re with us”. But I have to ask if this is really what we want to be doing. I have to ask if this is really how we want our lives to be affected, by a game between two and only two teams? A game where we can do little to participate other than wear our team’s colors and engage in debates with other fans about last Sunday’s coaching decisions?
Are all issues really divisible by team affiliation? Is having a healthy life and eating healthy foods and drinking healthy water (and having access to all of them) really a liberal v. conservative issue? Or Democrat v. Republican issue? Is it?
Is spending the citizens’ money really a liberal v. conservative issue? Is killing other human beings really a liberal v. conservative issue? Is freedom of one’s person, speech and movement really a liberal v. conservative issue? I guess it is. But how did it get that way?
It got that way because the people of the United States, right from the beginning, ceded their ability to participate in their own government. In football at least the qualifications for playing are solely biological. If you’ve got the right speed, strength and gender you can play. That’s unfair but at least it is uniformly unfair.
But if the Minnesota football team loses next Sunday, your son doesn’t get killed. If the Detroit team loses next week, you don’t get your house destroyed due to failed levees. If the San Francisco team loses you don’t go bankrupt because you can’t afford your medical bills. If the Cincinnati team loses you don’t drink benzene and carcinogens like aspartame in your soft drinks, pesticides in your food, mercury in your medicine and water.
But in the game of politics, the results of who wins and who loses have tremendous ramifications in our lives. Right from the beginning of this game, only white men could play (vote). Only wealthy men could participate. People such as African(-Americans) and Native Americans (Indians) weren’t even qualified to be spectators for another hundred years.
And today, how much money does it take to run for national office? How much money does it take to get the charter to open a bank? How much money does it take to get the FCC to give you a license to broadcast a TV or radio signal? How much money does it take?
Who decided to put the government in 8 trillion dollars of debt? Was it you? Was it me? Who literally ceded the authority to create money to a non-governmental organization? Who decided to spend half of the government’s budget on the military? Was it you? Was it me? Was it fans of Team Y? Who decided to make corporations the legal equivalent of a person? Was it you?
And you might say that fans of Team Y elected George Bush. Voting irregularities and fraud aside, is that even true? Or did a board of electors actually decide that? A board nobody voted for.
Well you might say oh well I voted for Representative X and all of the votes were added up and Rep. X was elected directly. Is that really true? Even assuming you weren’t barred from the polls because you didn’t have a photo ID (even though none is required), that your provisional ballot (because you failed to follow registration requirements) was counted, your chads were properly punched, your name wasn’t wrongly placed on a list of convicted felons, you can afford to get to the polling place, you can take time off from work to get to the polling place, a computer didn’t alter or delete your vote, is it really true?
Maybe. It depends on how you look at it. It depends on how the state legislature organized the district you live in. If you live next door to a largely Democratic district but the Republican-controlled state legislature redrew the boundaries so you now live in a majority Republican district, does your vote really count?
A state legislature consisting of a group of people of which you only had the opportunity to vote for one of them gets together to decide how to carve up congressional districts in such a way that the incumbent is almost always “representing” an area with a safe majority of supporters and these jurisdictions are often approved (or disapproved) by a judiciary that you again did not choose. And this representative goes on to the Congress to decide extremely important things that affect your life.
Are you really participating? Am I? Is anyone? The laws have changed since George Washington’s time but it seems to me like it’s still mostly rich, white men who participate in this football game. All the coaches are rich, white men and most of the players are too. There’s a lot of cheering and booing going on in the stands but not very many fans ever get to leave their seat and go down on the field and take a snap.
Did we really decide to spend a billion dollars a week on a war in Iraq? Did the fans of Team X decide it, really? Did the Congress? Did anyone you know personally decide it?
The owners of real sports teams do not really care about their fans. What they care about is winning games because this brings in greater revenue. A small part of the revenue comes directly from the fans – tickets purchased, official apparell, etc. The vast majority of the revenue however comes from big businesses who pay for advertising – they pay the big bucks to get a chance to influence the fans in a way that is profitable for their business.
And that’s exactly how this game of politics works today. The political party that wins attracts more fans. More fans means more revenue, a little from direct donations and a lot from big business. The businesses spend money on the party that wins so that they can get a chance to sell their product to the fans. Winning brings more fans and more fans means more eyes watching the ads, more chances of revenue. Halliburton would be financing Dennis Kucinich’s campaign tomorrow if they thought it would be profitable to do so.
Fans of the real game of football know ahead of time that they won’t see one penny if their team wins the Super Bowl. They don’t expect to. But it’s ok because sports are a hobby, a diversion, a pasttime – a form of entertainment. What has put me in this funk is the concept that the game of politics is now nothing more than entertainment – rooting for your team to win, arguing in a bar with fans of the other team and going home not a penny richer even if your team wins.
I hate that so many important issues have been reduced to a fan vs. fan dynamic. I hate this polemic where it’s a “liberal” concept to call the fighting in Iraq a civil war while it’s a “conservative” concept to say it is sectarian violence. I hate this rhetoric that it’s either “cutting and running” or a “timetable of withdrawing the troops”. I hate the fact that “gay marriage” is an issue which is determined by team loyalty. I hate the fact that the legality and circumstance of stem cells is an issue of team loyalty. I hate that our country’s entire foreign policy is determined by one of two coaches (political parties).
Right now fans of Team Y want all questions to be decided by their coach (Bush). Fans of team X are hollering for a return to status quo ante, where the general manager, coach AND players decide what to do. But I say that more is required, more participation, more eligibility.
Just imagine a few things for a moment. It’s just imagining so it won’t hurt you. Imagine if voting was compulsory, like it is in Australia, for all citizens. What if everyone had to participate and therefore everyone’s voice had to be heard, at least somewhat? How would that change our political system?
What if voting took place on a Saturday, like it does in most democracies? What if it fell over two days so that people with jobs could get to the polls? How would that change our political system?
What if you did not have to show any ID or fill out any registration forms, but just had your finger stained with indelibile ink to show you had voted, like they do in many parts of the world? How would that change our political system?
What if the President of the United States was neither elected by 48 electoral boards nor on a state by state basis, but by a simple majority of the popular vote nationwide? How would that change our political system?
What if there were more political parties, like 5 or 10 of them, with members elected to municipal and state positions? How would that change our political system?
What if there was a law guaranteeing all citizens the right to vote no matter what? How would that change our political system?
What if campaign seasons were limited to 6 weeks or less (instead of 2 years plus), like they are in most other democracies? How would that change our political system?
What if Congress had 2000 representatives instead of less than 500? How would that change our political system?
What if people in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands and the Mariana Islands could vote in national elections? How would that change our political system?
What if political advertising was either publically funded or a spending cap was imposed? How would that change our political system?
What if there were mandatory term limits on all political positions? How would that change our political system?
What if the FCC’s chairperson and governing board were directly elected? What if ordinary people had the legal right to operate radio and TV stations? How would that change our political system?
What if the Federal Reserve chairperson and the World Bank’s president were directly elected? How would that change our political system?
Etc etc….
Anyway I already know I’m a long winded bastard so I’ll wrap this up now. I will say, as I’ve said many times before, that blogging is one of the last and most important methods of participation that we have left in this rigged game. And that’s why it is so critically important.
Not only does blogging give everyone a voice, without race, biological or (excessive) financial requirements but it gives all of us a chance to educate ourselves so we can participate AND make better choices.
Peace
