Regarding the Rally for Sanity
Now I'm all for anything that energizes the under-40 crowd to be involved and get out to vote, so I'm not criticizing the rally for sanity/fear in theory. I have a greater problem with the execution, however. Specifically, with what Jon Stewart, who I usually love, had to say with his platform.
First of all, the "blame the cable media" message. It's been pointed out that the combined viewership of the Fox, MSNBC, CNN and HLN primetime news shows is about 2% of the US population. How can something that is only seen by 2% of the people be that toxic to the discourse. It's a portion of the discourse that hardly anyone is involved in. It's like having a large party and two guys off in one corner are arguing with each other with the occasional shoulder shove. The only people noticing it are ones choosing to look over in that dark, unlit corner of the party. And to be perfectly honest, Stewart and Colbert and your buddies nudging you, pointing at the guys arguing with each other and saying "hey, would you look at those jerks? What a couple of assholes."
Second of all, the "I go, you go" message. It sounds great in theory, but in political execution it completely sucks. Why is that? Consider for a moment exactly what that would mean. It would mean politics would come down whose turn it is to get their priority addressed. You think that the gridlock in DC is bad now, wait until you try doing "I go, you go" government. In fact, we have a historical example of this. If you don't remember from high school history, here it is; The Missouri Compromise.
The Missouri Compromise was "I go, you go" brought to the admission of states prior to the civil war. It meant that for every free state that was ready for admission to the Union, there had to be a slave state to go with it. The practice actually started about 4 years before the Compromise was formalized when Indiana was admitted and Mississippi was added shortly afterward. It was a desire to keep everything "fair and balanced" in the Congress between the slave states and the free states. After this we had Illinois/Alabama, Maine/Missouri (when the Compromise was formalized), Arkansas/Michigan, and Florida and Texas/Iowa and Wisconsin. Then gold was discovered in California, and California boomed to the point that it could be admitted, but there was no slave territory that was large enough to be admitted. The Whigs had California ready and wanted to go, but the Democrats said "but we won't be able to go after you do!" And it broke down the system. The only remaining territory eligible to become slaves states are the present states of Arizona and New Mexico. So a new compromise was worked out but it only lasted 4 years. Then the Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed to try and create a more agreeable "let the residents decide" system of determining free/slave status. Sounds reasonable, right? It led to "Bleeding Kansas"; a period when slaveholders and abolitionists flooded Kansas with "residents" who competed for political control of the Kansas Territory, often breaking down into open violence between the opposing immigrant groups. By 1860, the South wanted to go with a Southern Democrat president who would uphold slavery and the expansion of slavery to new territories and if they didn't get to go, they would secede.
Sometimes you have to put your foot down and say "I go, you go, is no good because it perpetuates injustice!" What would Stewart propose now? That in exchange for the Democrats getting to go with financial system reform the Republicans get to go with blocking repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell? The Democrats get health care reform, but the Republicans get to keep the Defense of Marriage Act? That's not how the system is meant to work! Never was, never will be. Because that's a recipe for more gridlock, not less. To quote George W. Bush; "elections have consequences". One of those consequences is that the party that wins control gets to pass the laws; or it should be. The way that the filibuster has been abused over the last two years seriously calls that into question, too. If you aren't happy with the laws being proposed or passed, you vote for someone who is going to change it. But you have a chance every two years to determine whose turn it is, then you back off and let that group have their turn.
Granted, the discourse on the cable news shows can be over the top, but it's not the problem. Not to the degree characterized. And to be honest, you have to be a bit skeptical when you watch them. If you don't think that something sounds right, research the issue and determine if Bill or Keith or Glen or Chris is lying to you. Sure, it takes a little bit of time and effort, but you have the internet! The information is there at your fingertips. Learn to love sites like thomas.loc.gov (where legislation is available online). Imagine what we had to do in the 1980s in order to be informed voters. We only had the three networks (yes, back then only NBC, ABC and CBS had news units) and CNN for TV news sources. Thanks to the recession at the beginning of the decade, most cities were down to a single newspaper. If you wanted to read the legislation yourself and get it unfiltered through the TV or newspapers or one of the very few local radio talk shows (Limbaugh was really the first national political talker, and he didn't syndicate until the end of the decade), you had to hope that your local library could get a copy of what you wanted through the GPO. It's a LOT easier to be an informed voter today, but you have to put in that effort, and you cannot let your sole source of information be the cable news shows, and that includes The Daily Show or The Colbert Report. Even people who watch those shows probably don't know what was in the health care bill, but you can go to http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/index.html and find out what was in it, and when those provisions go into effect. But if you relied on FoxNews or your local GOP candidate (or even local Democratic candidate who has been running on something other than the health care bill) you probably don't know that children can now stay on their parents' insurance until 26 as of September. Or that seniors now have rights to expanded preventative care coverage, and that similar preventative care provisions for the rest of us are coming in the future.
I know, this has gotten a bit ranty, but politics is not as simple as "I go, you go", and that's the point. And that it's not so simple that anyone should be getting it distilled down to a few talking points from the cable news shows. True political sanity is also not blaming the media as a whole. There are journalists and media outlets that are doing their best to inform, rather than propagandize. Political sanity calls for saying "give this bill an up or down vote, stop blocking it", and if you have to call a party out for being obstructionist, it's not taking a side in the battle of Democrat versus Republican, but instead it's taking a side in the battle of action versus inaction. You don't reason with a two-year old that is throwing a tantrum, so why would you try and do so with a party that is politically pulling the equivalent? Political sanity states that you shouldn't.
First of all, the "blame the cable media" message. It's been pointed out that the combined viewership of the Fox, MSNBC, CNN and HLN primetime news shows is about 2% of the US population. How can something that is only seen by 2% of the people be that toxic to the discourse. It's a portion of the discourse that hardly anyone is involved in. It's like having a large party and two guys off in one corner are arguing with each other with the occasional shoulder shove. The only people noticing it are ones choosing to look over in that dark, unlit corner of the party. And to be perfectly honest, Stewart and Colbert and your buddies nudging you, pointing at the guys arguing with each other and saying "hey, would you look at those jerks? What a couple of assholes."
Second of all, the "I go, you go" message. It sounds great in theory, but in political execution it completely sucks. Why is that? Consider for a moment exactly what that would mean. It would mean politics would come down whose turn it is to get their priority addressed. You think that the gridlock in DC is bad now, wait until you try doing "I go, you go" government. In fact, we have a historical example of this. If you don't remember from high school history, here it is; The Missouri Compromise.
The Missouri Compromise was "I go, you go" brought to the admission of states prior to the civil war. It meant that for every free state that was ready for admission to the Union, there had to be a slave state to go with it. The practice actually started about 4 years before the Compromise was formalized when Indiana was admitted and Mississippi was added shortly afterward. It was a desire to keep everything "fair and balanced" in the Congress between the slave states and the free states. After this we had Illinois/Alabama, Maine/Missouri (when the Compromise was formalized), Arkansas/Michigan, and Florida and Texas/Iowa and Wisconsin. Then gold was discovered in California, and California boomed to the point that it could be admitted, but there was no slave territory that was large enough to be admitted. The Whigs had California ready and wanted to go, but the Democrats said "but we won't be able to go after you do!" And it broke down the system. The only remaining territory eligible to become slaves states are the present states of Arizona and New Mexico. So a new compromise was worked out but it only lasted 4 years. Then the Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed to try and create a more agreeable "let the residents decide" system of determining free/slave status. Sounds reasonable, right? It led to "Bleeding Kansas"; a period when slaveholders and abolitionists flooded Kansas with "residents" who competed for political control of the Kansas Territory, often breaking down into open violence between the opposing immigrant groups. By 1860, the South wanted to go with a Southern Democrat president who would uphold slavery and the expansion of slavery to new territories and if they didn't get to go, they would secede.
Sometimes you have to put your foot down and say "I go, you go, is no good because it perpetuates injustice!" What would Stewart propose now? That in exchange for the Democrats getting to go with financial system reform the Republicans get to go with blocking repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell? The Democrats get health care reform, but the Republicans get to keep the Defense of Marriage Act? That's not how the system is meant to work! Never was, never will be. Because that's a recipe for more gridlock, not less. To quote George W. Bush; "elections have consequences". One of those consequences is that the party that wins control gets to pass the laws; or it should be. The way that the filibuster has been abused over the last two years seriously calls that into question, too. If you aren't happy with the laws being proposed or passed, you vote for someone who is going to change it. But you have a chance every two years to determine whose turn it is, then you back off and let that group have their turn.
Granted, the discourse on the cable news shows can be over the top, but it's not the problem. Not to the degree characterized. And to be honest, you have to be a bit skeptical when you watch them. If you don't think that something sounds right, research the issue and determine if Bill or Keith or Glen or Chris is lying to you. Sure, it takes a little bit of time and effort, but you have the internet! The information is there at your fingertips. Learn to love sites like thomas.loc.gov (where legislation is available online). Imagine what we had to do in the 1980s in order to be informed voters. We only had the three networks (yes, back then only NBC, ABC and CBS had news units) and CNN for TV news sources. Thanks to the recession at the beginning of the decade, most cities were down to a single newspaper. If you wanted to read the legislation yourself and get it unfiltered through the TV or newspapers or one of the very few local radio talk shows (Limbaugh was really the first national political talker, and he didn't syndicate until the end of the decade), you had to hope that your local library could get a copy of what you wanted through the GPO. It's a LOT easier to be an informed voter today, but you have to put in that effort, and you cannot let your sole source of information be the cable news shows, and that includes The Daily Show or The Colbert Report. Even people who watch those shows probably don't know what was in the health care bill, but you can go to http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/index.html and find out what was in it, and when those provisions go into effect. But if you relied on FoxNews or your local GOP candidate (or even local Democratic candidate who has been running on something other than the health care bill) you probably don't know that children can now stay on their parents' insurance until 26 as of September. Or that seniors now have rights to expanded preventative care coverage, and that similar preventative care provisions for the rest of us are coming in the future.
I know, this has gotten a bit ranty, but politics is not as simple as "I go, you go", and that's the point. And that it's not so simple that anyone should be getting it distilled down to a few talking points from the cable news shows. True political sanity is also not blaming the media as a whole. There are journalists and media outlets that are doing their best to inform, rather than propagandize. Political sanity calls for saying "give this bill an up or down vote, stop blocking it", and if you have to call a party out for being obstructionist, it's not taking a side in the battle of Democrat versus Republican, but instead it's taking a side in the battle of action versus inaction. You don't reason with a two-year old that is throwing a tantrum, so why would you try and do so with a party that is politically pulling the equivalent? Political sanity states that you shouldn't.