The ‘DSM Constant' of American Politics

By Octopus

This is more afterthought than post because I had promised myself a blogging break of 6 to 8 weeks. My reason for taking a hiatus: I am moving to new quarters and need time off to pack up my clamshells and move to a new reef. Regardless, I still scan the blogosphere and respond to articles that catch my fancy. Such as this one from Swash Zone Emeritus tnlib who writes: Letter to a whiny young Democrat, based on this column by Mark Morford:

See what happens when you wallow in hollow disappointment and refuse to vote in a rather important mid-term election, all because your pet issues and nubile ego weren't immediately serviced by a mesmerizing guy named Barack Obama just after he lured you into his web of fuzzyhappy promises a mere two years ago, back when you were knee-high to a shiny liberal ideology?

Well, now you know. This is what happens: The U.S. House of Representatives, the most insufferable gaggle of political mongrels this side of, well, the rest of Congress, reverts to GOP control like a brain tumor reverts to a more aggressive form of cancer, and everything gets bleaker and sadder and, frankly, a whole lot nastier.

I am not in a position to single out “whiny young Democrats” for special derision because, after all, they did give President Obama an electoral victory in 2008 (for which I am eternally grateful). And while I do consider Fire Doggers a whiny and bratty bunch, I do not necessarily consider them young.

I do not have a handle on who stayed away from the polls. Conventional wisdom states: Mid term elections are always “off” years, and this was known in advance. I recall what David Axelrod said even before the inauguration. Axelrod expected substantial mid term losses, which he cited as good reason for pushing the most contentious legislation first – such as healthcare reform – while the President still held Congressional majorities.

Perhaps there is misplaced blame going around. Do you blame bratty young Democrats who did not go to the polls, or do you blame voters who did and enabled idiots and proto-fascists to win elections?  Let me rephrase the question: Do you blame bystanders at the crime scene or the mugger in handcuffs?

Case in point:  Paul LePage won the Maine governorship with a mere 38% of the vote. I consider 38% the DSM Constant of American politics – the anxiety-addled rabble, oppositional-defiant bagheads, and obsessive hand-wringing reactionaries whose repetition compulsions cause them to repeat the same self-defeating behaviors and elect the same psychopaths who brought everyone to ruin in the first place.

I should also point out that the USA has always been a “half savage” country where politics runs on high octane sleaze.  Nevertheless, point taken.  Perhaps next time, voters will be more motivated to counteract the DSM Constant by going to the polls.

THE CONGRESS EVERYONE LOVES TO HATE

Remarkable!  Moments after I left a comment under tnlib’s latest post, I found this story at the NBC News website, The Do-Something Congress:

This Congress … accomplished more, legislatively, than any other Congress since the 1960s (the Great Society) or the 1930s (the New Deal). In the past two years, it has:

• expanded the safety net with the health-care law;
• invested billions in the nation's roadways, airports, schools, and green technologies with the stimulus;
• reformed the nation's financial system with financial reform;
• passed billions in tax cuts for Americans with the stimulus and the extension of the Bush-era tax cuts
• expanded civil rights with the repeal of "Don’t Ask, Don't Tell."

And in its final piece of business, the Senate is currently working on one of the White House's top foreign-policy goals: ratification of the New START treaty with Russia. Then throw in all of the other legislation enacted this Congress, like credit-card reform and the Lilly Ledbetter anti-pay-discrimination act.

(…)

Yet as we -- and others -- have pointed out before, political power in Congress comes and goes.  What truly matters is what you do with it when you have it.

To repeat what I said earlier under tnlib’s post:

If Jane Hamsher had her way, Congressional Democrats and Republicans would be locked in mortal combat, and none of this would have happened.

There is much to be admired in the patient and pragmatic approach – in contrast to being dogmatic and self-sabotaging. I will say this of folks who allow themselves to get angry in any debate: If you feel you must trade on anger to win an argument, then you have defaulted on any claim to win by persuasion.

So Jane, how is that hopey changey thing working out for you? It works quite well, IMHO.