Imagine the day after the 2008 election. The Democrats will be whooping it up, having bagged the presidency and padded their power in the House and Senate.
They will be giddy as newly weds - thinking that everything from now on will be so much better.
Sadly life is rarely so kind to newly weds... and never so kind to political parties.
The real question is, can the Democrats survive the loss of the man who held them together and gave them purpose for eight years: George Bush?
To understand why such a loss might be problematic, let's take a look at the laws of politics.
The First Law of Politics: Change always works for the other guy.
The center of Barak Obama's campaign is the word "Change".
The singular goal of liberals and progressives for the last eight years was to say and do anything to bring about "Change".
But that is a word with a bite.
Once the Democrats become the incumbents, the word "Change" turns against them. The American electorate always wants to "toss the bums out" and in 2010, the Democrats will be the bums.
The left mistakenly believes they will be rewarded by the voters if only they can pass Universal Health Care, end the Iraq War and implement job programs.
It never works that way because of the next law.
The Second Law of Politics: The electorate remembers only bad things.
Stated another way, "all the good an incumbent does vanishes the instant they piss anyone off about anything".
Voters are smart, not fickle. They elect people to do good things, not bad things. So when an incumbent does something good, they are just doing their job. When an incumbent does something to piss a voter off, they become a bum to be thrown out.
The problem is - pissed-off people are four times more motivated than happy people, see the next law.
The Third Law of Politics: Politics belongs to those who show up.
Face it, George Bush is so unpopular that proclaiming "I like George Bush" at a large diner party is proven to be less crowd pleasing than spitting into the potato salad. Conversely, sharing your admiration of Obama to a diner partner is several orders of magnitude less thrilling than whispering "please pass the potato salad".
It's easy to flood the polls with voters to rid the nation of George Bush and those nasty Republicans. It is quite another to get them to skip a diner party the next election cycle.
Winning is never sustainable because having won is boring!
The Fourth Law of Politics: Activism is really about sex.
If you don't believe that, you went to trade school.
The only place on earth more sexually exciting than a rally is a rock concert and there is no place on earth more randy than a rock-concert under the guise of a rally. You got guys thundering, and girls squealing and waves of guys and girl undulating in one unifying hormonal......
Enough said.
On the other hand, name the last time you saw crowds of youth in a mating frenzy over an incumbent?
Or does thinking about it piss you off?
The Fifth Law of Politics: Rage is only about rage.
Angry people are like those little dogs who bounce as they bark, it comes natural. They do not need an excuse to do it. That is why rage is only about angry people, not politics.
In other words, the same people who Blog in capital letters about BUSH or TAXES are the same people who shriek at the checkout clerk at Target. They used to be the same people who got laid after rallies, but now rant at the current administration because they no longer do.
Trying to keep angry people under the same roof is next to impossible especially when you are the thing they are railing against.
The Sixth Law of Politics: No tent is big enough.
The technical term for this is "value distance", a fancy way of saying the only way you can get both Fiddy-Cent and Billy Ray Cyrus under the same tent will be as prisoners in the Maricopa County Jail.
Republicans fit better under canvas because their extreme are so weird. MBA's and Christian Conservatives have absolutely nothing in common. They get along because they view each other with the same benign indifference that a pit viper sees in a wristwatch.
The Democrats are something else. They are all about identity politics and sadly those most intolerant of other people's identity are those who pimp their own.
Besides identity politics does not mesh well with The Establishment.
The Seventh Law of Politics: You're THE MAN.
No way around this one. The minute a party controls all three branches of government, it officially becomes THE MAN.
The Democrats just do not get it.
You can't dress completely in black, get laid at rallies, rage against the machine and still support the reining regime.
Duh!!
Not only are outsiders loath to be sucked into the mainstream but the party is in perpetual panic that one day this just might happen.
We saw this with the Irish, Italians and Poles. The instant they became suburbanites instead of MC's, Wops and Pollacks, they started voting Republican. Best to keep them MC's, Wops and Pollacks.
Which begs the question, why can't we all be happily diverse, like the Europeans?
The Eighth Law of Politics: The European model doesn't work overseas.
Scratch a lefty and you'll find a Euro-wannabe.
Why?
Because in the summer months when college kids are not trying to get laid at rallies - they are backpacking through Europe.
Almost every liberal and progressive worth their salt has done this - and it changes them forever.
In Europe, American college kids can buy liquor, hop light rail, Europass on high-speed rail, smoke Ganja in Amsterdam and spend all summer trying to get laid without hurting their heads thinking about politics.
They love Europe because they do not have to live there.
They never experience a class system so rigid the government decides on the basis of a single grade school test that your fate is to learn toaster repair in a fifth rate trade school.
Nor are they likely to experience the high unemployment or the rage of a Muslim ghetto either.
So while American liberals yearn for the soft Socialism of Europe, the French elect Sarkozy, the Germans vote in Merkel, the Italians call back Berlusconi and the English toss Brown and Labour out on their ear.
The Ninth and Final Law of Politics: Political memory lasts less than two weeks.
By February 1st 2009, I predict that George Bush's popularity will rise to "Who?"
© Greg Schiller, 2008
Author: Greg Schiller
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 70
As far as the class system in Europe, the US has the least socially mobile society, with the best marketing brainwashers. We re-elect politicians with greater frequency than they did in the old USSR.
Greg, if you had to toss out your tried and true political truths that are over 40 years old you would have nothing to write about.
- Rex, sooner or later, most everyone becomes the man.....(read parents).
- Bruce, linking to an article about social mobility on a Trotskyitte website was a great comic touch, thanks :)
- Kim, we will see....perhaps all those people who extolled the virtues of divided government on Gather in 2006 will again visit us with their wisdom.
It'll be like, here we go around the Mulberry bush, the Mulberry bush, the Mulberry bush; here we go around the Mulberry bush so early in the morning.
What's for breakfast again?
By the way, who's George W. Bush anyway, I don't remember him at all.
Then a few months later, it'll be 'say what?' All over again.
I view politics in the same manner as I view professional wrestling. Only 25% of what you see is real, the rest is a staged production for the audience's enjoyment. Some enjoy the antics of the heel while others enjoy the antics of the face. It's all point of view.
but Greg, your right... it almost makes me wish they win... except I love our country (not saying liberals do not, but many of them love their rebellion more then there freedoms)
- Dorothy, that what I said as I sat down to write this.
- Doc, everything is corrected. Have you not noticed?
- Richard, the ninth law diminishes with age.
- Chris, politics SHOULD be more like wrestling. For what we pay, the least they can do is entertain us.
- M....it will be fun to watch either way. Unless of course the sky does fall between now and November as so many of the prophets on Gather have predicted. :)
A build: A law that deals with the media and how they treat "The Administration", whomever it is.
I think Chris's 25% is highly inflated.
> - Bruce, linking to an article about social mobility on a Trotskyitte website was a great comic touch, thanks :)
and the main point, is we can become more without the government doing anything...
I can't give you praise enough for this one. It's your best yet.
"You can't dress completely in black, get laid at rallies, rage against the machine and still support the reining regime.
Duh!!"
Truer words were never spoken.
- Bret, I wrote that for all the people I knew who wore black, got laid at rallies, raged against the machine and now scrupulously check the status of their Deffered Comp distribution.
I seriously thought you were joking.
I've also loved this quote :
"It is well known that the most radical revolutionary will become a conservative on the day after the revolution." – Hannah Arendt
How will the Left Wing handle things when they are no longer the revolutionaries? I think they'll walk around like brainless automatons for weeks, bumping into walls before they finally get their bearings.
Governing is a lot tougher than sacking Rome.
If we are trading political quotes, I get to throw out my favorite.
During an interview with Mao a gushing French reporter asked, in all seriousness, "What do you think of the French Revolution?"
Mao answered, "It's too early to tell."
The day that Bush's "Office of Faith Based Initiatives" becomes Obama's "Office of Race Based Initiatives", we will know who "the other guy" is.
ROTFL
What everyone forgets is that the miniute a candidate becomes President, eveything changes. He/she has to work within the "system", so all the ranting against it was for naught.
I got a couple of problems with your statements, link and article.
1) Your statement "US has the least socially mobile society" is absurd and your link did not support this assertion. I have no idea why you chose the word "least", perhaps because of its dramatic affect. None the less the United States remains the MOST socially mobile of societies.
2) I place the Socialist Equality Party right down there with the American Nazi's. I would never cite the Nazi's as a source of information. I have no idea why you would cite these people. It undercuts your credibility.
3) The article itself was ridiculous. It's contention was that few people from the lowest 20% of the income spectrum make it into the top 5%. This contention shows an abysmal ignorance of social mobility. Mobility is rarely from top to bottom; rather it is between adjacent income levels. Social mobility is not about becoming fabulously wealthy, it is about bettering one's lot.
And there is no place better to do this than in America.
Ridiculous ... interesting word for you to be throwing around in this article.
Come on......the U.S. is not a mobile society because people from poor and dysfunctional families do not routinely make it into the top 5% of income earners?
What does that tell us?
What I would be curious about is how many people from the bottom 20% make it into the 25% to 50% range? Now that would be interesting.
What I also find interesting, and have cited articles on this subject to you, is analysis about the greates cause of downward social mobility. Is it Downsizing? Outsourcing? Disability? Loss of employment?
Nope, it is divorce.
Robin, I agree, Bush being gone will be a happy day.
One truth is important - the Democratic control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency will offer a huge potential for misstep. Do they follow the Republican lead or chart a new path? Consider that after taking the White House by a single Supreme Court vote (after losing the popular vote and squeaking by on the electoral map) the Republicans ruled as if they had a mandate to push through every plank of their ideology. The immediate unification of the country following the events of 9/11 gave them further confidence to exploit their newfound power for the party's own benefit (i.e., rather than the benefit of the people). Alas, the Rovian focus on ideology and division has had its backlash.
So, do the Democrats follow suit, as Greg's "humorous" article suggests, or do they take this new chance (remember, they have had chances before) to chart a new course? A course that keeps in mind that significantly more than half the country will have different viewpoints than the Democratic far left ideology (I'm including centrists and moderate Democrats in this alternative group, along with most of the people that voted Republican)?
So, the trick for the party is to not believe their own press clippings about mandates. Remember that the people elect their reresentatives to act for the good of the people (all people), not just for the good of the party or the party's favored ideologues.
The key is the President. And it looks like we'll get a good one.
Both sides have their valid points of view, and both sides have their reactive excesses.
For our part, we've had a liberal, ecological, (sorta) caring and sharing socialist governent since the closing year of last century. In that time we've decriminalised prostitution, legitamised same-sex marriage, signed Kyoto, yelled at the Japanese about whaling, taxed the bejeezus out of anything that emits carbon (including, quite soon, cow farts, I kid you not), dismantled most of our armed forces and generally done everything that George Bush would sooner die a horrible death than consider doing. And after three terms, the Kiwi electorate doesn't appear to want to go back to them for extras.
Elected governments are born to fail, no matter how competent they are or how much good they do. You nailed it with the second law Greg (actually you nailed it with the other eight as well, but that's a whole other thing). Sooner or later they get stale, and when power changes in an election, it is almost always about getting rid of the current guy than bringing in the new one. Hey that's a democracy for you.
All that aside, this article proves the one thing that politics is reliably, constantly, unanimously good for: taking the piss.
Thanks for the laugh, Greg. It was most needed.
The only change that ever happens in politics is when a new group of politicans tell you the same old thing.
... Like TOO much spicy food eaten early in the morning before my mug of coffee.
But boy I sure am delighted by the construct as first reading.
Gotta READ IT AGAIN to fully savor the magnificence. (Ken: sipping ** reading ** sipping more)
Now, if we could just learn to channel all that trying-to-get-laid energy into something useful......
I thought getting laid was useful?
Great article, Greg!
- Thanks Don.
- Marilyn M., ironical, ain't it.
- George W., I should have included a tenth law....always blame the other guy.
- ROBIN V., I will probably be drinking that day too. But that is always true. :)
Thanks for your well written, well thought out comment. By the way, your comments usually are well written and well thought out, so this is no exception.
In answer to your central question, what should the Democrats do? I say do not worry about it. Do what you feel you have to do. If that means defeat, so what?
What is the purpose of political power anyway?
Is it something to be sustained or is it something to be used and lost? Personally, I find more honor, integrity, and national good in the later than the former.
Exactly Pat, The laws of politics are as Darwinian as the laws of nature.
- George, no truer words were ever spoken.
- Ken, I feel the same way sipping coffee as I read these comments.
Well writen.
OMG! This is SO true! It's always the angry, resentful, and bitter that take out their emotions on others, isn't it? It's as if they just have to get it off their chest, but they don't first consider whether or not their victim is the one who honestly deserves the "heat".
Well, David, in politics it can definitely be a liability. Just ask Clinton.
No Doyle, no Tony S., no Don S., no Sandy Knauer, no Clark Kent, no.............well, you get the idea. The always-negative, most extremist Left Wingers are nowhere to be found. I attribute it to the angry nature of Liberalism in general. I guess revolutionaries are just mean, angry people.
Either that, or their heads might explode if they read the 9 "laws" in the article above.
Sure, but that's only because the Inaguaration will be just past......
Roll down the timeline to 2012 and the next election ????
republicans could be trying to resurrect Bush's name, trying to claim "I was with him all the way in Iraq"
one never knows *chuckle*
I don't put much stock in assessments like this-- both sides use the same line and neither side can prove the emotions they ascribe to others, have anything to do with reality.
The fact is, I am usually having ample fun fun fun complete with belly laughs, ESPECIALLY when they are telling me what a mean spiteful misanthrope I am *chuckle*
Disagreements have a tendency to be conflated into all kinds of irrational accusations and claims. It's only natural, except of course for the goodie two shoes pacifists and tut tut tut at every little outburst they see, from their usual paternal mode.
For the record, I can't remember the last time I was "angry" from anything I've seen in a chat room, or a glorified message board like gather.
the US has the least socially mobile society
Why do these people that make such claims, NEVER put up a source worth it's salt ?? *chuckle*
THE FACT is, in 1900 there were 4-5 thousand millionaires in the USA. By 2000 there were 371 billionaires in the USA today, more than six times as many as the next country, Germany. Worldwide the USA has the most number of millionaries too, with 9.5 million millionaires, and about a third of them live in the United States (3 million of them right here in the states!)
That amounts to a 9% growth in millionaires over last year.
"When you look at the U.S. compared to those countries, the U.S. is still far and away the leading producer of millionaires in the world. You know, China has 345,000 millionaires, India about 100,000. The number of millionaires in India is about the same as the number of millionaires in the state of Ohio."
Oh, trickle-down, that's right. But what we are seeing is a growing economy built around the wealthy. There is in America today a shortage of yachts, a waiting-list for Ferraris, for gulf-stream jets. The starting salary for a butler today is $80,000. There's so much demand at the high end for services and products that serve the wealthy that it is creating jobs and economies for the rest of America.
According to one survey the number of millionaires (people with a net worth exceeding a million dollars) in the U.S. has doubled in the last five years.
There had been maybe 300 U.S. millionaires in 1860, but by 1900 there were 4,000 to 5,000. Isn't that AWE INSPIRING? 5000 millionaires then, and now over 3 million of them, in just over 100 years.
It will be interesting to see what the Dems run on once Bush is gone, come Jan they will likely have some serious planning to do.