Governmentality

One of my more cynical, but firmly and confidently held, beliefs about politics is that each party quietly keeps alive the issue that is its greatest source of public outrage, because it needs the outrage for fuel, for dollars, for attention. Republicans don't really want to stop abortion. If they had to, they'd quietly supply the funds to keep the abortion clinics in business. If abortion went away, how far would they have to travel to find another hot button that works so reliably? Democrats don't really want good race relations for the exact same reason.

To that list, I have to add two more very convenient outrages in the Republican column: terrorism and budget deficits. I've spent nearly a decade scratching my bald head over the utter irrationality of the Republican position on terrorism, and how it flies in the face of very recent, very powerful historical evidence: the British and the IRA. How did the British treat IRA terrorists? They refused to militarize the conflict, refused to treat arrested IRA members as prisoners of war despite demands from the prisoners that they do so. Instead, they proceeded as though the bombers were common criminals, and the symbolism and imagery were powerful. And where is the IRA now? Where we would like al-Qaeda to be: on the trash-heap of history. So why should we militarize our confrontation with al-Qaeda? What sane person could think it's a solution? What does it do other than let us flex our muscles and congratulate ourselves on what mighty warriors we are? It reminds me of kicking the computer to try to make it work. It's certainly tempting to do so, but anyone who thinks a kick genuinely will make a computer work better is an imbecile. So why do Republicans cling so stubbornly to militarizing the al-Qaeda conflict? Because they don't really want it solved. Why would they? If it goes away, they lose a key leverage point.

Same thing, by the way, goes for deficit spending. Anyone who can still say "tax and spend Democrat" without being washed away by a tidal wave of absurdity is living in Oz. The Bush deficit is the crust, mantle, and outer core of the "Obama debt." Clinton gave us a surplus, Bush poured it down the drain, and Obama is foundering under a wave of rage over how large the debt is. It's insanity, but it's outdated fidelity to the hoary old symbols of American politics: Republicans cut the budget and Democrats bust it. Yes, and once upon a time we thought all Jewish people were nebbishy and incapable of fighting, before the IDF came along and re-defined "tough." But to be Republican right now is to sound the alarm about the deficit, all the while never allowing oneself to be pinned down to what program one would actually cut. Republicans panned Obama's State of the Union for not being adequately serious about budget cuts, but then also complained when he canceled NASA's efforts to return to the moon. Which is it? What do they want cut? Answer: nothing. They want the deficit nice and high. While it's high, they have an easy leverage point.

Please understand: I've written a lot about Republicans in this post, and, in fact, I think what passes for Republican thinking and Republican leadership is, at this precise moment in history, unbelievably toxic to our country's well-being. But that's not at all to say that the Democrats don't have their own convenient problems that they don't, at all costs, want solved. I mentioned race above, and there are others. It's just that Republicans, having decided winning back a majority trumps all other objectives, have theirs very prominently on display at the moment.

That's one of the sad but true qualities of elected officials: you must pretend to grasp the seriousness of a problem and be committed to solving it, as long as anyone is listening. But in your heart, you know how badly you depend on the problem's continued existence. How they straddle that hypocritical chasm without falling in, I couldn't tell you. I'm glad I've got the job I have, and not theirs. It must just suck the soul right out of you.