By Jason Pancake
Welcome to the first installment of “At Home He’s a Tourist,” my current issues column for the Kiss or Kill newsletter!
I don’t like calling this a political column because like many things, “politics” is often better in theory than in real life. The problem with politics and most political issues is that the people in charge who do the talking (politicians/corporations/media) often try to make things more simple (or more complicated) than they actually are. Many issues like our ongoing “war on terror” are made too simple and appeal to emotions or soundbites (“Good guys vs. the bad guys”), while other issues require more honesty and common sense. The general public’s apathy and lack of knowledge of issues is not entirely the fault of the politicians though. The truth is that like anyone else, the people in power need to look out for their self-interests and that means remaining in power. The easiest way to do this is to get most people to dislike “politics” and not want to think too hard about complicated issues. Unfortunately the general public is usually willing to help them out. 74% of Americans can correctly identify the Three Stooges (Larry, Curly, and Moe), while only 42% could name the three branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial branches). The Three Stooges probably would have done a better job at running the country than the three branches of government have in the last few years, but come on!
I’m not here to be preachy or make Mr. Obvious comments (“Dick Cheney is out of touch with reality!”), nor am I here to be a corporate Democratic Party mouthpiece (I’ll leave that to Hillary). I’m just here to give you insight on relevant stories and issues that are in the news, stories that should be in the news, or my take on how things work in real world.
This week’s story is a little introduction into the ways political maneuvering and planning take place in Washington DC. According to a top Republican Party staffer, more than 70 Senators would oppose the troop surge in Iraq if their vote matched what they were saying in private meetings. If this report is true, it means that if almost all Democrats are against a troop surge, then at least privately, around 20 Republican Senators would also oppose the President’s proposal. With an unpopular war, a lame duck President, and tough elections in 2008, these Republicans in office know they need to adapt to save their careers — Even the creationists that don’t believe in evolution. The question this brings up is why the Senate hasn’t been able to just vote on it and state these feelings in public? If 70 of the 100 Senators were to publicly announce that they are against sending more troops to Iraq, that would be huge news and really send a message! However, in the real world, long before even thinking of having a vote to criticize or end the war, Senators (including Democrats) would have to huddle up with their personal and party consultants and advisors to do a number of things including: 1. Assess how negative a story the media will make this out to be and estimate damage control, 2. Find out who might be offended. (Even if a majority of the country is against the war, what about people who vote in Ohio, Florida, or Pennsylvania?), and 3. Find out how many people they might offend who are important donors or sugar daddies. After all, you might be the hotshot Senator hanging out with Jon Stewart this week, but you’ll regret it if you can’t raise the cash for those 30-second TV commercials the week before the election.
Until next time, keep your eyes open, but remember that looks can be deceiving.
I’m not here to be preachy or make Mr. Obvious comments (“Dick Cheney is out of touch with reality!”), nor am I here to be a corporate Democratic Party mouthpiece (I’ll leave that to Hillary). I’m just here to give you insight on relevant stories and issues that are in the news, stories that should be in the news, or my take on how things work in real world.
This week’s story is a little introduction into the ways political maneuvering and planning take place in Washington DC. According to a top Republican Party staffer, more than 70 Senators would oppose the troop surge in Iraq if their vote matched what they were saying in private meetings. If this report is true, it means that if almost all Democrats are against a troop surge, then at least privately, around 20 Republican Senators would also oppose the President’s proposal. With an unpopular war, a lame duck President, and tough elections in 2008, these Republicans in office know they need to adapt to save their careers — Even the creationists that don’t believe in evolution. The question this brings up is why the Senate hasn’t been able to just vote on it and state these feelings in public? If 70 of the 100 Senators were to publicly announce that they are against sending more troops to Iraq, that would be huge news and really send a message! However, in the real world, long before even thinking of having a vote to criticize or end the war, Senators (including Democrats) would have to huddle up with their personal and party consultants and advisors to do a number of things including: 1. Assess how negative a story the media will make this out to be and estimate damage control, 2. Find out who might be offended. (Even if a majority of the country is against the war, what about people who vote in Ohio, Florida, or Pennsylvania?), and 3. Find out how many people they might offend who are important donors or sugar daddies. After all, you might be the hotshot Senator hanging out with Jon Stewart this week, but you’ll regret it if you can’t raise the cash for those 30-second TV commercials the week before the election.
Until next time, keep your eyes open, but remember that looks can be deceiving.
No comments:
Post a Comment