Tom DeLay and Other Partisan Politics Ridiculousness

A New York Times Analysis Piece about Tom DeLay deciding to quit the House of Representatives. I also heard a short discussion of this on NPR this morning on my drive in to work. In any event, it provides a good opportunity to look at the role of partisan politics, since Mr. DeLay is widely credited with, if not inventing, at least feeding and exacerbating partisan politics in Washington, and by extension throughout the United States. Of course, say what you will, the Times is unabashedly Democrat. And this piece is no exception, they lay into Mr. DeLay and Republicans in general something fierce. All but calling the Republican Party a pack of tyrants who use their control over both legislative branches to feed their own power. They fail to suggest that if the roles were reversed and Democrats were the ones in power that they would do precisely the same thing.

And therein lies the problem of modern bi-partisan politics, and I think a general indictment on our modern society in general. In politics and law, in entertainment, in sports, indeed in common every day life there is an overwhelming contrariness. People feel the need to be contrary simply for the sake of disagreeing. Granted, it's fun, but it can be really frustrating when you are trying to get something accomplished.

Those who know me are screaming "HOLY POT AND FUCKING KETTLE BATMAN!" I am the most contrary person you'd ever want to meet. Well, sometimes I'm the most contrary person you'd ever want to meet. I have honestly argued with people over whether the sky was blue. I argued that the concept of "blue" is a linguistic construct and that other people call "blue" different things, and that it's just mere coincidence that it's called "blue" at all and not "speaker" or some other word that someone along the line had to have invented because there HAD to have been a time when "blue" was "invented" - it's a stupid, childish argument that, I think, everyone has had when they were 16 and finally figured out that they knew everything.

The problem is, I think this is the equivalent of just about every argument that is held any more in the political arena (I promise to try to keep this post centered on politics). On "Fresh Air" yesterday Ben Carlin, a producer of "The Daily Show", was asked about a spot that frequently appears on that show called "This Day in Punditry" (or something like that) where they have children assume the role of 'talking heads' found on MSNBC, FOX News, CNBC, CNN, etc. To point out just how childish the arguments can be. And I think he's right on. But it isn't limited to pundits - it happens every day in politics.

It seems that politicians will say whatever they think we (the public) want to hear. Or, if not what we want to hear, what they (by "they" I mean "their party") want us to hear on the subject. There is no objective debate of an issue. There is the Republican side and the Democrat side. Either you're "for" abortion, or you're "against" it. Forget for the moment that no one is going around saying they are "pro" abortion! It's a ridiculous position, but those in the Republican Party want you to believe that if you aren't against abortion, you are no better than a murderer. An "abortion" is just a representative topic, this is true for Medicare, Education, the War in Iraq, just about every topic you can imagine. You're either for us or you're against us. There is no middle-ground policy. They can afford to take this position because they are the dominant party and it doesn't matter if you agree with them or not.

Such contrarian stances result in bad law. It results in the state of South Dakota banning all abortions - for the SOLE REASON of testing Roe v. Wade. What's the point!? Yet, we have to go through the motions because the Republicans feel some need to assert their power on the issue. Actually, they know that inertia is a powerful force. Half the battle in any contrarian policy is getting enough people to agree with you - so if they can power through an issue there is a good chance that it will never get reversed. It's inertia, and the result of an A.D.D. society. They know they can put an idea out there, the public will get in a huff over it, and if it survives the huff, the public will move on to the next topic and they can get their legislation through. It's happening with abortion. It's already happened with the War in Iraq and wiretapping. And it's going to happen with Digital Rights Management and other IP issues.

What the Republicans (or indeed the party in power, which just happens to be Republican Party right now) have figured out is that all you really need is a lot of money. If someone, say a Political Action Committee, has enough money, they can keep an issue on the legislative agenda forever. And if the issue stays on the agenda forever, eventually the public will move on and it will get passed. For instance, look at the "Broadcast Flag" issues. For three years the MPAA, RIAA and TV groups have been trying to get the broadcast flag issue passed. It refuses to go away despite overwhelming public resistence to it by manufacturers and the public. Yet, it stays on the plate and every year some Republican stooge (it's always a Republican, by the way) tries to sneak it into some budget as a rider that hopefully no one will notice. And every year, some one notices (usually the EFF) and the senators and representatives are flooded with mail and email and telephone calls and counter-propaganda about how unproductive it would be. Eventually it will get passed. Why? Because the powers that want it have more money than the powers that don't and they can keep it on the agenda forever. And eventually the EFF will be looking the other way.

And that's how politics works. There's no intelligent debate. There's just "the way it's going to be." And that way is whatever way someone wants to pay for it to be. We don't argue the relative merits of a position and select a course of action that is reasonable and move on to another topic. We yell at each other until one party forgets what the other is yelling about. It's like throwing shit at a wall to see what sticks. Except when the shit falls off the wall, it just gets picked up (assuming someone has paid for it to get picked up) and put back in the pile to throw at the wall.

Right now it is the Republican agenda that is getting most of the shit to stick. Why? Because they are in control of both parts of the legislative branch, the executive branch, and the judicial branch. So, throwing money at them is a good idea - you are more likely to get your agenda passed. In the 1970s and into the 1980s it was the Democrats. And what happened, well let's see - civil rights, advances in gender equality, increased quality of education (especially at the university level among the lower-tier universities), increased access to education, etc. And, who was making money? Teacher's unions, old people, manufacturers' unions, and other political action committees who have a vested, monetary interest in ensuring that their constituency gets paid.

Of course, we also had war, and terrible foreign relations, and oil shortages. Uhhh...wait. Maybe that stuff isn't related to politics. But wait, let's look a little deeper, because while we have those things, we have some very powerful companies making a shit load of money off of them (unlike the first time around) - for example, Halliburton is seeing record profits because of the war, the oil companies are seeing all time record profits, etc. So, unlike the first time, the economy isn't being hurt by those 'problems' this time it's being helped!!

Anyway, as usual, this has gotten far afield. But the main thesis is this: because we don't have a negotiation process in politics, because our political process is so contrarian and majoritarian, we have the result of a dominant party that forces through paid-for legislation, rather than legislation that is aimed at the best interests of the general public. Am I just going to bitch, or do I have a real solution? Mostly, I'm just going to bitch today. But my suggestion, which will likely be the subject of some other post some other day is: a viable third party.