The problem isn't politicians, it's elections

The Constitution established different term lengths and election cycles for the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the President. The president serves for four. Senators serve for six, and the terms are offset so that they don't all turn over every six years. Poor congressional representatives have to reapply for their jobs every two years. This should mean that senators and the President can work on actually governing more than campaigning to retain their positions. In a perfect world perhaps...

Partisan conflict became increasingly toxic from 1980 onward. It really went back to the Nixon years, at least in its most recent iteration, but in the 1970s and early 1980s you might actually find a Republican who supported things that were good for planetary survival and the ordinary taxpayers of this country. Think of Nixon and the EPA.

Regardless of how we got here, we're here now. At the national level, everything runs to the frantic hamster heartbeat of the House of Representatives and their two-year terms. This means that at any level a party in power has perhaps a scant year to show results that they can sell to voters who are fired up and opinionated regardless of whether they really understand any of what they've been primed to be angry about. Between the representatives competing to be the most appealing to their districts -- whatever that might mean in each case -- and the senators who happen to be up for renewal, every two years brings a bunch of people kicking the table on which delicate things have been piled.

Shakeups appeal to citizens who don't look deeply at the challenges of governing. "Throw the bums out!" That'll teach 'em! Perversely, voters will also choose to retain someone who has consistently been very bad for them and the nation as a whole -- think Mitch McConnell -- because of good advertising paid for with large amounts of shady funding.

It's hard for an ordinary working person to keep track of all of the card tricks and shell games being played to manipulate elections. The internet has made lots of information available, along with reams of expert analysis to help you out. That's only made it more confusing. The tangle makes quick, destructive solutions even more appealing than they already were. Or voters check out and don't bother to take part at all. 

Election reform is going to be tricky. While corporations are not people, money is speech. This can't help giving rich people more leverage unless campaign advertising is pinched down to a strict minimum, but even then, can the government forbid a private citizen from buying an ad to express an opinion? Not only would that invite a trip to the Supreme Court, any law to close all the potential loopholes would be too long for anyone to read and too dense to enforce effectively.

Even limiting the length of campaigns is hard. If someone wants to use their free speech to talk about an issue or a political candidate they like, can they be censored if they happen to talk about it outside of an official 6-week campaign span?

See how liberty undermines itself? Because the fledgling United States had to measure itself against the yardsticks already established in European civilization, this country had to come up with a way for its luminaries to look good compared to the kind of authoritarian figures they had defied in the war of independence. A so-called meritocracy is still an -ocracy. It's still a hierarchy that creates powerful winners who can boss around the more numerous losers. Those winners can establish generational advantages on top of the social advantages conferred by being a free white male.

Civics was just another class when I was a kid. It was not presented as the most crucial aspect of being an adult. The most crucial aspect of being an adult was earning a living. Academic success could help your standing in the search for employment after you finished school, whether it was the high school diploma that was presented as the basic working class credential or various levels of college education to move you forward in white collar and technical fields. Civic involvement was elective. You might have to serve a hitch when there was still a military draft, or show up for jury duty if you had the bad luck to get that summons. It was considered a duty to vote if it wasn't too inconvenient.

Certainly you can't participate in citizen government if you're a destitute drifter. So of course you wanted to find whatever education or training suited your temperament, to secure an income. At the same time, throughout my lifetime, and the era of the Baby Boomers in general, health care was improving, and leisure options just kept expanding. Life was good, and provided plenty of distractions from the grind of routine government functions.

There have always been political observers and analysts keeping an eye on the inevitable percentage of people attracted to government. There has always been that percentage of people attracted to government, for reasons both noble and base. We counted on the observers to report, to help us guide our choices for when we could be bothered to vote. Big targets are easier to see, so reporting can be much sparser on candidates below the state level. Also, the more likely you are to actually know a person and deal with them on a daily basis, the harder they might be to confront over a political issue. Think about tensions at family dinners when people attending have conflicting political opinions. It's just as weird when maybe its a longtime customer in your bike shop, or a guy who lives down the road from you.

Because elected officials make decisions affecting hundreds, or thousands of lives, including future generations, maybe you can't agree to disagree and remain friends.

The stakes keep getting higher because each election builds on the pile of kicked cans from the ones before. Voters are angry, anxious, and confused. No wonder that a solid percentage of them is ready to hand off to a dictator. They've been trained out of thinking for themselves over generations. The hierarchy of needs goes from survival needs to sensual gratifications. Civic responsibility isn't even a category. It can get lumped in with social connection, but you can find plenty of social connections that demand less of you and feed you mental and emotional comfort.

Campaigning has already begun for 2026. Fundraising never ends. Governing takes a back seat to public image building. Elections have become a constant distraction from actually running the country.

Staying elected

 I'm getting emails telling me to press my Democratic senators and congressional representative to hold the line against the Trump administration and demand guardrails against the blatantly unconstitutional devastation and pillage of DOGE and cabinet members purposely selected to destroy their agencies or use them as tools of Trump's personal vengeance. These are worthy and necessary goals, but they're running up against the endlessly grinding wheel of the election cycle.

New Hampshire identifies as Republican even though the entire Congressional delegation is Democratic. Those Democrats manage to piece together enough factors to appeal to a majority of voters. But it could flip at any time. The majority in the state legislature are Republicans, and mostly hard right. The countryside is studded with Trump flags and signs even now.

Without a Congressional majority, Democrats can't do anything that will stop Trump completely. Even if they could, Democrats in swing states would have to impress enough right-leaning independents to retain their seats so that they could continue the fight. If they lose, a senate seat goes out of reach for six years. A Representative goes out for two. If that provides or perpetuates a Republican majority, their program continues, perhaps with new energy.

It's not just about staying in power. It's about continuing work in progress. The Republicans have the power now because they have no work in progress in the government. They can sub in any yokel who can get elected to swing a sledgehammer or a pickaxe. The painstaking work on their side has been done in places like the Heritage Foundation and right wing media. All of that has just been a setup to get their wrecking crew in place. They could literally just jump up and down and throw feces at this point.

You might think that Democrats would then be free to field a variety of candidates, but for some perverse reason the Republican shit show still draws significant support. It manages to attract a small percentage of self-identified "thoughtful" voters who believe that they are supporting some kind of coherent policy. Once they realize that they've wasted their vote it's too late. Maybe they reject the candidate they picked the first time, but their conservative leaning means that they're ripe to believe the marketing they hear and see about the replacement goon put up next by the Republicans.

The Democrats aren't a pure force for good by any means. In states where they are the entrenched power, human nature dictates that they succumb to corruption at the same rates as their right-wing counterparts. Maybe the goals of it are different in some cases, but the methods are still questionable or illegal. It's significant that the Trump administration has reached across the aisle to pardon corrupt Democrats like Eric Adams and Rod Blagojevich. It proves that criminality is the unifying principle, not any of the political, economic, and social philosophies they claimed as talking points in the campaign. Rod Blagojevich?! Who even remembered who that was? His name was fun to say, though.

I can tell an elected official what I wish would happen. I can advise. But I know that they know things that I don't. They're dealing with the situation in person, and coordinating information from their state and districts. They have to run the calculation constantly to find the balance between what a portion of their constituency says it wants and what will actually fly. I'm as disgusted and disappointed by John Fetterman as anyone, but I also know that he's balancing the input from his diverse state, attempting to represent them fairly and stay in place to advance better values when the opportunity arises. He seems like a duplicitous asshole to some of us right now, but maybe he's not a complete Manchin or Sinema.

At least he's no Tulsi.

Is it ideal? Of course not. But the strength of democracy is also its weakness. At every election, the candidates have to persuade a majority of eligible voters to pick them. The process never ends. Every action is scrutinized and analyzed, packaged and presented by all interested parties to guide the choice for or against.

Everything You Always Wanted from Your Government, but were Afraid to Ask

Joe Biden's victory in South Carolina shows that the forces of reason are reasserting themselves in the topsy-turvy Democratic Party. The moonbats of progressivism are being brought to heel by the adults in the room.

Realpolitik rules. It's what makes government work, and what makes it a constant disappointment. As I observed in the previous post, what makes a politician on the nominal left electable is the assurance that he or she will continue the inexorable pull to the right.

In the quest for electability, candidates like Joe Biden, Michael Bloomberg, and Pete Buttigeig all in varying degrees make sure that the broader electorate knows that they will not support things like an actual system of universal health care based on patient outcomes rather than corporate income. They don't use the word "free" to refer to education. Nothing is socialistic.

Socialism is a scare word with good reason. It has much less power now than it did when our global nemesis was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, but the USSR did plenty to tarnish the brand, which -- in its purest form -- is a recipe for just another kind of heavy-handed government. The negative stereotype has wide, deep roots and a dense, hard grain that you won't cut just by insisting that this socialism is democratic, and doesn't really mean what one definition of the word has always meant: government ownership of the means of production. It's been politically risky from the outset to try to turn socialism into a proud badge of American identity. It was one of those things that you would try to ignore, while focusing on the actual good things offered by the movement. But too many people can't overcome their ingrained visceral repulsion at the term. And then there are the wealthy, who stand to lose, bigly, with the institution of any form of widespread democratization in the workplace and the economy at large.

Small business owners may be even more afraid of humanitarian movements, because small businesses are much more vulnerable to all sorts of destructive forces. Technological developments or social trends may kill demand for your product or service with no quick route to regain your revenue stream. Rising wages not coupled with other social improvements like universal health care and affordable access to education and retraining may make employees too expensive, even though your business volume calls for more personnel. But because universal health care has been widely reviled for decades, you know as a business person that it's too risky even to try. Because everything in this country since 1980 has been based on the pursuit of profit and the glorification of wealth, it's un-American to suggest that education should be subsidized and expanded.

Tax policy could be designed to extract much more from the big earners, especially the corporate behemoths that profit inversely to their social responsibility, but that would require an overhaul of investment culture at its most basic level. Good luck with that.

This is why we can't have nice things: because the people with lots of nice things don't want to give any of them up, and the people who have managed to scrape together a few nice things know from sad experience that they are the ones who will get squeezed if any pie-in-the-sky programs get adopted. The wealthy who control the government will make sure that they get their preferential tax policy no matter what crazy bills manage to crawl all the way through an accidentally and temporarily progressive majority in Congress and get signed into law by the odd and occasional Democratic chief executive.

Even Democratic and unaffiliated voters who might want those nice social policies are afraid to ask for them because they know they will get hammered by the opposition from the GOP, corporate Democrats, and right-leaning unaffiliated voters.

The unifying factor among the majority of voters is that they want to make plenty of money, pay as  little as possible in taxes, and take no real risks. Even the lefties who say they don't mind if their taxes are high only accept the taxation as long as the money goes to the kinds of social programs they believe are ultimately good.

Policy fails because its proponents can't convince enough people that it is ultimately good. Because any policy usually takes a long time to show results, the waiting period often spans an election cycle, giving disappointed voters a chance to flip the party dominance in retribution. This generally derails beneficial social policies more than destructive ones, because nurturing and growth are slow processes that require patience. Destruction often shows quick profits, even if they're only a benefit to the rich getting richer. Economic pundits can still point to positive numbers as evidence that this is the way we should have been headed all along. That goes back to the fundamental toxicity underlying investment for profit. And the conservatives gravitate more readily to a warlike model of political interaction, which bolsters gerrymandering and dark money contributions to advance the glorious cause of unlimited wealth on a finite Earth.

Electable Democrats

As Bernie Sanders continues to build what looks like an avalanche of support among unanticipated legions of naive dreamers, the analysts fret and the experts foment that defeat is thereby assured in the general election. We don't need someone who is dominating primary elections. We need someone who can win The Big One. We need someone electable.

With recent history as our guide, we can safely say that electable Democrats only slow the rate at which our country and the world decline. Electable means that they don't threaten corporate domination of our economy. Electable means that they don't do anything substantial to overturn endemic racism. Electable means that they water down or completely abandon measures to protect the environment. It means that they don't persist when seeking full freedom and respect for women at all levels of leadership.

You can't do anything if you don't get elected at all. But you really won't do anything anyway if you're an electable Democrat.

After Lyndon Johnson decided not to push his luck, Republicans put a lock on the Oval Office that held until Richard Nixon stepped in it so badly that his successor, Gerald Ford, couldn't hold off a plucky peanut farmer from Plains, Georgia. But the peanut farmer only made it once. He wasn't re-electable.

For one thing, Jimmy Carter was too idealistic. They were good ideals, too. Solar panels on the White House. A suggestion that our consumer society might want to take a look at itself and reassess its priorities. A nudge toward citizen responsibility for society's well-being. So of course he got hammered, and the Democratic Party was shut out for another dozen years. We got trickle-down economics, union-busting, and legitimization of reactionary sentiments in an increasingly hard-line backlash against "liberalism."

Along came Bill Clinton, a Baby Boomer with a rock 'n' roll soundtrack and a sly southern drawl. You knew he was a bit of a rogue, but he was smart and charming and brought youthful energy to an office that had been dominated by old fuds for too long. He managed to hang on for two terms, but his embarrassing behavior in the second one poisoned the well again for the next eight years. But what got him into office in the first place was that he did not threaten the status quo in corporate capitalism. There was that early push for universal health care, but they dropped that like a hot rock and never looked back when they saw that big money was going to stone them with it in the next election. The Clintons were not shy about admitting that they wanted to be rich and saw nothing wrong with being rich to the limit of one's ability to suck in and retain assets.

Given what happened in 2016, I have absolutely no explanation for the election of Barack Obama in 2008. He was undeniably moderate, intelligent and eloquent, but his race was problematic. I have even less explanation for his re-election, although I am glad that he won both of his elections. Throughout his presidency, though, I knew that it was only delaying the inevitable. Nothing was really getting fixed. His presidency solidified the dark energy that propelled the current occupant of the Oval Office to victory in 2016. We are now set back considerably, and going further in the wrong direction every day.

Congressional elections are even more crucial than presidential elections to ensure that the country moves forward on anyone's agenda. If everyone could vote from neutrally-composed districts, elected officials would have to address issues knowing that their solutions really do have to satisfy the needs of ordinary voters regardless of party. The way that the two major parties have divided the problems of our nation, our world, and our species into binary, yes-or-no questions assures that we will fail to improve the situation for all but a handful of wealthy potentates and the uppermost of their loyal retainers. The GOP in particular has made governing nearly impossible by making the government itself look more evil than the real evils that threaten the liberty and happiness of ordinary people.

Conservatives talk about liberty, but only envision what they call "normal" people getting to use it. The right vilifies the left for promoting intrusive government. The "intrusion" consists of insisting that people and corporations pay their taxes, and enacting regulations to protect the environment. The intrusion curtails the right wing's ability to limit the freedom and prosperity of minorities of all kinds. The big government of the left is no bigger than it needs to be, to keep greedheads and bigots from inflicting their cruelty on people who make them uncomfortable.

You know who makes me uncomfortable? People who throw their shoulders around and threaten violence. People who have to walk around with guns hanging off of them. They can be ISIS or NRA, makes no nevermind. If you have to make a big time about how armed and dangerous you are, you're part of the problem. Your kind may well prevail, to the detriment of the happiness of our entire species, but you're still the problem. A world ruled on those principles is dark, dirty, and doomed.

The dominant opinion on the Democratic side is that Bernie Sanders is going to lose the 2020 election. His massive support among progressive factions will fail to provide enough votes to overcome all the advantages held by the incumbent, regardless of whether those advantages are ethical and legal.

If Bernie is toxic, the Democratic Party must take steps to put someone else up there. No one else in the primary field seems to inspire huge waves of enthusiasm. So we're screwed either way, unless enough people are repulsed by the GOP to vote against them no matter who gets the nod from the Democrats.

If the Democrats spend the next four months beating it into people's heads that Bernie can't win the general election, and then they let him become the nominee because they'll face an insurrection within their own party, they'll either have to bend over and back up to Trump or start working overtime to try to undo the damage they've done to Bernie's campaign. I hear a lot of blame hurled at progressives for being uncompromising and naive, but they keep winning these early primaries. Elections are decided by the people who show up.

The clouds of analysis grow thicker and thicker. That helps nothing.  It only creates more fog, more optical illusions and mirages over a real landscape that was already difficult to discern even without all the vapor and tricky lighting.

If anything emerges from this, it's that the policies presented by the progressives are way more popular than hedged bets offered by the candidates identifying themselves as moderate, if they identify themselves at all. A politician identifies according to the audience addressed. I do understand that elections require a certain flexibility, as does representative democratic government. But that gets back to the basis for our voting districts being prejudicial to the outcome. You never know for sure until someone gets into office. Even then, the thing that derails something you were looking forward to can take place in a meeting you never hear about, for reasons that legitimately and regrettably force a change in priorities. If you really want to know what's going on, get elected yourself and hear it on the inside. That's not an option for most of us, so we make do with what we can glean.