How did the states get so polarized when most people aren't extremists? Dunno. Is there a solution? I'm not sure anyone with power even wants one.
John Fetterman beat a weak opponent in 2022 and since then has shown numerous signs of still being afflicted by the stroke he suffered in the middle of the race. The Senate's change of dress code may have been put forward to accommodate him. Whether Pennsylvania is sufficiently blue to reelect him in '28 will be revealed in the fullness of time.
As for Lauren Boebert, she won't lose her House seat for being a fun date. There's no one in Washington with the right to expect she will be.
2 comments:
It isn't just American politicians who get reelected time after time, nor that opposing factions tend to keep a particular person in office. It seems to have become a standard in politics at least as far as we've noticed. As often as not it's inertia that appears to determine people's voting habits. There was a time when the public was much less apathetic, when a politician's incapacitation or outright corruption would doom their chances of reelection.
Maybe I'm kidding myself. When it comes to running for an office one doesn't already hold then a scandal can wreck a career. As for someone already in office there are any number of people so determined to keep their own positions that they'll downplay any unfavorable news about their leader.
You're right that most people aren't extremists but the party machines do make a big difference in determining elections. But most people probably don't care that much until something directly affects them and then it's too late.. for this term anyway. Then it starts over. Fetterman and Boebert may not make the cut next time but that depends on their comparative value to the parties.
It's interesting that Aristotle reserved the word “democracy” for anarchic mob rule.
You're right that there seems to be no will to change paths, even when the one we're on plainly leads to disaster. Which makes me think of people who insist that cancel culture is really just "consequence culture." But the things they manage to punish are usually pretty innocent. No one seems able or willing to levy consequences on the people who actually deserve it.
As you indicate, the large number of people functioning behind the scenes for any given politician are also a factor. They want predictability, and so if anything comes along to upset the routine, even if it's from the pol themselves, they do what they can to quell it. It's not a competitive system or an open one.
Party machines have turned out to be much more powerful and intrusive than I would have guessed in the not-too-distant past. Most people don't think that they have any particular influence on political outcomes, and while some of this may be a self-fulfilling prophecy, I'd be hard-pressed to prove them wrong. And the thing about embarrassing political stories is that most of them we never hear.
Aristotle wound up teaching Alexander the Great, if memory serves. The Greeks pioneered democracy, but there was always a lot of distrust around it. I agree with Churchill about it being the worst system except for all the others.
Post a Comment