America's Fascination with "Anorexic Politics*"

*= I don't know if that term's ever been used - but I like it. So in case this is the first time it's ever been used, I TOTALLY want to copyright it and coin it, so I can feel cool.

Anyhoo...

So in line with our impending election season, I had a few thoughts on how initiatives and measures are approached...

Thomas Jefferson's quote, "Great innovations should not be forced on slender majorities," seems to be the quote of the century for our lovable U-S-of-A, and why not? Why try to attempt legislation or acts or propositions or measures, etc when you only have a few more supporters than the other guy? Does one really want to push forth their agenda when one lacks a popular/majority support?

It's really a tough call, but I think it's sort of indicative of how our current legislation process is structured. When one attempts to bring up new policy issue, they have the tough task of proving the policy is worth debating, but after this initial barrier, there is a lot of freedom in designing the "meat" of the policy. However, when one brings up policies that have been debated and debated and debated - positions have already been taken, interests have already been set, and the "ding ding 'Lets get ready to rumblllllllllllllllllllle' " sides have been taken.

So is that why we, as a society and government, never try to "go for broke" with huge sweeping changes and reforms? I think so. It's apparent that in order to make change, we have to aim for incremental changes, b/c big successful reform attempts that can unify many interests are rare.

Barring any sort of huge national event ( 9/11, Kennedy Assassination, etc) that can unify the country, interests are just too frayed and numerous. Some of the most historical events in our country occurred during a "perfect storm" of events - After Kennedy's assassination, a new democratic majority, and LBJ's push for Great Society - when interests were somewhat similar. That's when we had a breakthrough in civil rights acts, healthcare reform, education, anti poverty, etc.

So since we're sort of in a "nationally unified" rut, what do we do? We aim for legislation and acts that aren't detailed enough that we're painted into a corner with a bullseye on our chests, but we also aim for something that's not vague enough that we get nailed to the wall for having some half-ass idea that more rhetoric than substance. But here's the other problem - it seems like the best offense is a good defense - and everyone just relies on their defense. That may be why it seems like we're still in a score less game.

Anytime any measure comes up for review - critics can just shoot it down by attacking the details or faulting its vagueness, most recently evidenced by the flop of Clinton's Healthcare plan. And to add insult to injury, when plans are lacking details - critics fill the gaps with misleading information and go on a media blitzkrieg with false representations. Sure this is wrong, and they'll issue a small back page apology for not "fact checking," but the calculated damage is usually already done. The majority of the public may not be swayed (they may not have even heard the adverts), but then again, the public doesnt matter. They just vote on the people who will make the decisions. As long as they media campaigns can sway the big whigs, then the goal has been accomplished, or better yet, as long as the media can influence some of the constituents (who later flood their local congressman's office with phone calls, giving the polictician the illusion of popular discontent), then the goal to influence the big whigs is uber-accomplished.

So this idea of "Anorexic Politics" in terms of legislation - the assumption that we have to be thin enough to be accepted by society, and not too fat to open up oneself for criticism - could be why we're hurting ourselves and sitting in a scoreless game (I know - I'm using tons of metaphors).

So I dont blame anyone for following Mr. $20 himself - Thomas Jefferson. Sure, "great innovations should not be forced on slender majaorities" but then again, that's probably why our society hasnt seen any great innovations in a while. We can't seem to find a way unify everyone. So until we can get that unity, incremental change seems to be the order of the day.

And until then, we'll just be sitting, watching a scoreless game and starving ourselves.