Hyperpartisanship

Washington D.C. is a product of our culture.  It is not an island, no matter how far from Main Street it may seem.  I am growing skeptical that blaming special interest adequately explains why the political machine is not being as effective as desired.  Politicians in the business of being reelected and building party majorities seek to answer to the feelings of their constituents.  In many ways, doing politics is a matter of reacting to the polity.

Strong emotion obstructs our ability to be informed and make good decisions.  Provocative rhetoric is entertaining, but it does not build consensus:  it's divisive.  CPAC recently provided guests a Nancy Pelosi pinata and Harry Reed punching bag for entertainment, while convening under pretense and gravitas of turning our country in the right direction.  It is surreal to see people 40 years and older speaking and acting like this.  When people assemble to do politics while engaging in these kinds of speech acts, we should not be confused by the patriotism and rectitude of their politics:  this is placing politics ahead of government.

As the rhetoric elevates, the credibility of the actor may not be an issue among sympathizers.  But there is a tradeoff between capitalizing on the emotions of a specific group of people who sympathize while expecting to appear credible to others.  In so far this is true, an opportunity has been missed to make a case for one's cause except to those who more or less already agree. 

In a year with mid-term elections, there is speech of challenging incumbents and 'sending a message to Washington'.  Yet the political rhetoric is the same.  The culture of doing politics is not changing.  The idea we can switch out people without addressing the culture of our politics will likely result in unfulfilled expectations once more.  Politicians who cater to zealousness may inadvertantly undermine the legitimacy of the institutions they purport to represent.