Archive for October 4th, 2008
What Monster Hath They Wrought?
Will it have teeth? Let’s hope.
No, not the bailout. (Fooled you, dear regular reader, didn’t we?)
However, the bailout did inform of a new monster, but we don’t really mean a bad monster.
Aside: that bailout monster, while gargantuan and ugly, will have all the control of the terminally incontinent. It will wet itself, repeatedly, in many embarrassing situations. It will have many arms and legs and pustules and will be hideous, but for all that, it will fail at its purpose. (See anything we wrote during the past two weeks.)
It will be revolting and will defecate everywhere making many matters worse, and it will likely never truly die; instead, it will just linger. While lingering, it may mutate and become the “Strategic Mortgage Reserve,” and be an intangible, substantially gassier version of our strategic helium reserve. It may strangle the economy or crush it, but only by accident. Such an effete beast could only cause harm by accident, e.g., tripping and falling on something. It is, however, a symptom of very serious problems, but that’s for another day.
No, dear reader, we’re writing about new monster that might be much more dangerous to its intended victims and has much longer in its incubation, and actually much bigger than the $700 billion bailout. Have no fear, though, we are not its prey and most likely, you are not, either. In fact, you may be part of the monster. We think that we are, too.
No, we think that if it lives, it will be a patricidal and matricidal monster that preys on its creators and turns on them in an instance. In that respect, we wouldn’t be surprised to see several incumbents lose next month. Why? Just for the hell of it because voters feel privileged to be as fickle and feckless as their elected politicians.
Our hunch, which the chairman shares, began to grow last week, last weekend, and especially on Monday. It was reinforced by other recent observations, particularly the after-debate coverage on FOX News last night, and it was further supported by reading Peggy Noonan’s column, Palin and Populism. (Ms. Noonan is as keen of observer as we’ve ever read regarding our nation and its people and politicians.)
The possibly terrifying monster that will devour the national political class is the populace’s newfound cynicism. No, wait. We think it is much bigger than in the past. See if we are convincing.
It is a deep, well-honed cynicism developed over many, many years – nurtured by manipulation and strengthened by friction like an excellent physical therapist. That cynicism means that none of the political class, on any side, can be trusted – ever, or for at least a long time. Many have said that in the past, but it seems different now – as if it has actually been internalized and accepted, i.e., politicians first, party affiliations second. That is why President Bush has such low approval ratings and why Congress’s is even lower and why few think the bailout will work or government is effective.
Now, some may say that what we observed this week is nothing new. Many citizens – generations of citizens, in fact – have long shared a distrust of power and politics and politicians. In fact, some critics will point to the Founding Fathers as evidence that our observations are a bit late – by more than two centuries. We beg to differ. The foundational assumption of this nation’s forefathers was the fallen nature of man. That sentiment along with that continued skepticism of many Americans about the nature of power are inherent and enduring strengths of our country, but we are talking about something slightly different.
No. This week we didn’t see that skepticism. We saw a deep and resentful and muscular cynicism.
We think that it stems from the fact that for about fifty years, politicians, working in concert with television news editors and producers and advertisers, have been attempting to manipulate the American people via the tube. Nothing new there. But, it may finally come back to bite them in the butt.
In the past, most folks were so indifferent to politics that if they noticed, they didn’t care, but as we see it, times have changed. Possibly, it’s the annoyance with the seemingly infinite and repetitious commercials or impatience with the year-round campaign and scaremongering. Perhaps it is the saturation of the video culture and dispersion of technical knowledge of about editing and broadcasting, etc. Maybe its Youtube.
Folks of all ages and all backgrounds seem a bit savvier and knowing about such things, particularly when someone is attempting to manipulate them. As far as we can tell, many aren’t fooled, and most don’t like it. We think that it means they are becoming resentful, and that resentment will only grow. (“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”)
As we see it, that means that political machinations may finally fail and fail badly with us common folks.
Perhaps it was our fellow citizen’s lack of respect for the self-serving “Chicken Little” cries for the bailout that most citizens did not accept and did not believe. One needn’t go to an expensive college or have an advanced degree to notice that many of our national business and political leaders came off as extreme weaklings and whiny, scared sissies, and really, nobody in this country has respect for that – not even other weak, whiny, and scared sissies.
Perhaps it was what we considered to be a LACK of response in the stock market: 7% down on Monday followed by not much for the week. (With their hysterical performances, many must wonder whether the Treasury Secretary or the Chairman of the Federal Reserve fainted last month. Was it the panicky, overnight, intra-bank credit markets that did it, or a case of the vapours?)
Away from the bailout, perhaps it is from watching the trailers for the nationally-released movie that belittles and parodies liberal icon, Michael Moore. Chris Farley’s brother does bear an uncanny resemblance to Mr. Moore.
Perhaps it was what we saw after last night’s debate. We saw pollster Frank Luntz interview a focus group of St. Louisans. We saw an older women speak as if she were tired of being “played,” and we thought, hell hath no fury (or resentment) like the old lady who feels she’s being played. She was young once, and knows what it means and doesn’t like the lack of respect. Perhaps it was hearing one of Brit Hume’s panelists articulate that citizens seem “mad as hell and they aren’t going to take it anymore.” Let’s hope.
While our fellow citizens may pay attention to political speech today and in the future, but it seems more likely that they may tune-out the actual content and evaluate it as performance art or as a talent show.
Well, not really tune-out but observe from a more post-modern perspective. Possibly, they’ll deconstruct it to the best of their ability, but the underlying assumption will be that they don’t trust and don’t believe and so will ignore the content. Perhaps it is their participation in voting in nationally-televised reality shows that have empowered to populace to consider their own opinions equal to the experts, and perhaps they have realized that many experts appear naked and clueless.
In the past, folks may have viewed the opposition that objectively and that harshly, and therefore questioned motives of their opponents and suspected them of lying. Now, that cynicism seems to be pointed at much broader targets, including their own “side.” Perhaps that stems from the realization that politicians, like professional athletes in the era of free-agency, have only one, true side, and their team colors do not seem to be red-white-and-blue.
What does this mean? At a minimum, we’d suspect opinion polls to be less reliable.
Our fellow citizens take no oath when responding to such questions and don’t always answer truthfully. In the past, that may have been a defense mechanism. (Today, it may still be. We could certainly see people lying about their Presidential vote so as not to appear racist.)
We’re not referring to this defensive type of lying, which anyone with a teenager will know and understand. We’re thinking about individuals answering in ways to purposely manipulate the results – for no other reason than the sport of it or as an experiment or game. “Yes, of course we’ll vote for you, dearest. Of course, we will sweetheart. We have your best interests at heart, sunshine – just like you have ours. No, we trust you completely.” (In that regard, the reader may be interested in our essay, Trustworthy? No. Predictable? Yes.)
We’ll have to think more about it, but it doesn’t seem that a cynical populace is good for politicians, which may make it great for the country.
Wouldn’t be great if through several generations of their own cynical efforts, they unintentionally created a (cynical) monster that consequently devoured them? Let’s hope that the populace stays angry and hungry.
As always, feel free to comment, especially on such a speculative post.
