While America might not have the most functional government in the world, I stand by the fact that we have the most entertaining. To your average media junkie (I count myself among them) you can count on a steady stream of political gaffes, mistakes and outrageous statements almost any day of the week. Some might decry the lack of intellectual rigor in our public discourse, but we more than compensate with wacky escapades like the Sarah Palin phenomenon or Harry Reid's "racism."
Out of all the media spectacles of 2009, the Sarah Palin campaign was among my favorite. Whatever emotion you feel towards Palin, it's probably a strong one. She usually avoids the specifics of her ideas or policies, but that's OK, her politics aren't what keep us Googling her name. Our continuing fascination with the former Alaskan governor shakes the cultural fault lines that divide two very different Americas. The controversy that seems to follow her on both the campaign trail and book tour stem not so much from political differences, as differences of identity. In 2008, Sarah Palin demonstrated that she had a lot to learn in the game of politics. However, her true significance is what she represents, not what she has accomplished.
While the occasional pundit will sometimes decry the partisanship of contemporary politics, our political establishment is pretty much secure. This doesn't mean that Americans are uniformly content with the way they are governed. Quite the contrary, the saying "Washington is run from Wall Street," or "You can't fight city hall," is often considered quaint by the people who hear it. Most of us are unsatisfied with our government or society in one way or another, but both of them are so much bigger than any one of us that we feel there isn't much we can do about it. Instead, our political energies are channeled into battles over identity.
You can call the two sides whatever you like: Latte Drinkers vs. Miller Men, NASCAR Fans vs. Book Clubs, Larry the Cable Guys vs. The Seth MacFarlanes, whatever. It's hard to draw lines as to where one turf begins and one ends, but most people can tell you which side they're on. Even then, membership isn't absolute. Most of us like lattes and Miller Lite, Larry the Cable Guy and Seth MacFarlane, NASCAR and books (well, maybe not the last one).
American politics is unique among developed nations for the narrow list of political options it presents to its electorate. While there are plenty of obscure third parties to vote for out of principle, at the end of the day, we have exactly one more choice than North Korea. For the most part, both parties operate under the assumptions that globalization needs to continue, and we must maintain an overwhelmingly powerful military at any cost. Furthermore, domestic policy on abortion, immigration, affirmative action and free speech are still subject to passionate, and even radical, rhetoric, but the actual laws remain largely the same and are only occasionally subject to stipulation. These tiny battles are how we judge which side is winning.
Even issues of economic importance are drafted in the ongoing culture war. Most people (including myself) have only a rudimentary understanding of the incredibly complex world of economic policy. However, knowledge of the subject is not a prerequisite to having an opinion on it. Big government vs. small government is largely relative to your stance on who you regard as your enemy. Government is perceived as either a tool of slimy intellectuals and bureaucrats to control our lives ever more intimately, or as the most effective weapon that ordinary working people have in their fight against the tycoons and elites who seek to enrich and aggrandize themselves at the people's expense. Are you being robbed by the rich or the poor? How you answer that question should give you an idea of whether you stand on the right or the left of the aisle.
These subtle battles are what makes small issues (like the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance) seem big, and big issues (like health care) seem enormous. Perhaps the Massachusetts election (still a blue state by almost every other measure) is the result of its solidly Democratic base perceiving the health care bill as more of a handout for insurance companies than a tool against the machinations of Wall Street and the corporate boardroom. Regardless, the culture war is far from being resolved and its relevance to the world of electoral politics will be a matter of each side convincing their base that they know who is their friend, and who is their enemy.
Respond to Mike at thenews@bgnews.com
Out of all the media spectacles of 2009, the Sarah Palin campaign was among my favorite. Whatever emotion you feel towards Palin, it's probably a strong one. She usually avoids the specifics of her ideas or policies, but that's OK, her politics aren't what keep us Googling her name. Our continuing fascination with the former Alaskan governor shakes the cultural fault lines that divide two very different Americas. The controversy that seems to follow her on both the campaign trail and book tour stem not so much from political differences, as differences of identity. In 2008, Sarah Palin demonstrated that she had a lot to learn in the game of politics. However, her true significance is what she represents, not what she has accomplished.
While the occasional pundit will sometimes decry the partisanship of contemporary politics, our political establishment is pretty much secure. This doesn't mean that Americans are uniformly content with the way they are governed. Quite the contrary, the saying "Washington is run from Wall Street," or "You can't fight city hall," is often considered quaint by the people who hear it. Most of us are unsatisfied with our government or society in one way or another, but both of them are so much bigger than any one of us that we feel there isn't much we can do about it. Instead, our political energies are channeled into battles over identity.
You can call the two sides whatever you like: Latte Drinkers vs. Miller Men, NASCAR Fans vs. Book Clubs, Larry the Cable Guys vs. The Seth MacFarlanes, whatever. It's hard to draw lines as to where one turf begins and one ends, but most people can tell you which side they're on. Even then, membership isn't absolute. Most of us like lattes and Miller Lite, Larry the Cable Guy and Seth MacFarlane, NASCAR and books (well, maybe not the last one).
American politics is unique among developed nations for the narrow list of political options it presents to its electorate. While there are plenty of obscure third parties to vote for out of principle, at the end of the day, we have exactly one more choice than North Korea. For the most part, both parties operate under the assumptions that globalization needs to continue, and we must maintain an overwhelmingly powerful military at any cost. Furthermore, domestic policy on abortion, immigration, affirmative action and free speech are still subject to passionate, and even radical, rhetoric, but the actual laws remain largely the same and are only occasionally subject to stipulation. These tiny battles are how we judge which side is winning.
Even issues of economic importance are drafted in the ongoing culture war. Most people (including myself) have only a rudimentary understanding of the incredibly complex world of economic policy. However, knowledge of the subject is not a prerequisite to having an opinion on it. Big government vs. small government is largely relative to your stance on who you regard as your enemy. Government is perceived as either a tool of slimy intellectuals and bureaucrats to control our lives ever more intimately, or as the most effective weapon that ordinary working people have in their fight against the tycoons and elites who seek to enrich and aggrandize themselves at the people's expense. Are you being robbed by the rich or the poor? How you answer that question should give you an idea of whether you stand on the right or the left of the aisle.
These subtle battles are what makes small issues (like the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance) seem big, and big issues (like health care) seem enormous. Perhaps the Massachusetts election (still a blue state by almost every other measure) is the result of its solidly Democratic base perceiving the health care bill as more of a handout for insurance companies than a tool against the machinations of Wall Street and the corporate boardroom. Regardless, the culture war is far from being resolved and its relevance to the world of electoral politics will be a matter of each side convincing their base that they know who is their friend, and who is their enemy.
Respond to Mike at thenews@bgnews.com
Anonymous comments are always moderated, please sign in and join the discussion. 
Your bringing in the election in Massachusetts doesn't help your main argument because you just speculate about it. "Perhaps" Boston is a location housing several health insurance national headquarters and they pushed their interests there harder than ever before. "Perhaps" a chemical was introduced into the Massachusetts water supply the caused a loss of 50 IQ points in the population. "Perhaps" space aliens manipulated the results.