The Folly of Gaslit Political Conflict
It turns out that we have Manchurian voters, not Manchurian candidates.
I live in a peaceful, secluded exurban subdivision, an enclave of nondescript colonials erected in the early 1970’s on a mid-century tomato farm. The neighbors are generally nice. People mind their own business. Kids sell Girl Scout cookies, and someone holds a block party every fall. Otherwise, there is little to report.
Political displays tend to be sparse, but there are exceptions. The most entertaining by far is the young couple on the other side of the neighborhood with the playfully biting “Reagan/Bush ‘84” sign. But I will set that one aside. Otherwise, as luck would have it, the two most notable disturbances in the general political silence are on full display across the street from me, on opposite sides of a cul-de-sac. On the left is Rich, with the large flagpole bearing a Trump flag dangling below Old Glory. Directly across from the Rich estate is Andy, with the oversized Harris/Walz banner gracing the path to his front door. I suppose they counteract each other, sort of like kindergartners crossing their fingers to block the cooties.
I should be clear: Both are very nice neighbors. Both mind their respective shrubberies and don’t bother anyone. I have exactly nothing bad to say about them personally, nor do I cast any political cooties their way in protest of their loyalties and sympathies. Their flags and signs don’t bother me, certainly — I’m an independent for life. And, as I once shouted indignantly in the schoolyard when some squinty-eyed mutant objected to my socks, “It’s a free country!”
But, geez, it is soooo bleeping silly. I’d say “dumb”, but these aren’t stupid people. They’re just… I don’t know… caught up in the crossfire of modern political culture? Who knows. All I can say with certainty is that these signs and banners are pointless. For starters, everyone already knows that Rich is a Trump type and Andy is a dyed-in- the-wool progressive. This is a mystery to exactly nobody nearby. And since this neighborhood is an odd appendage to an otherwise rural landscape, with no thru traffic other than Amazon and UPS deliveries, it’s not like there’s anyone else of note to convince. And even if there were, I kind of question whether the majestic flagpole and dazzling banner are the final straws that will change a teetering vote. "Man, I wasn’t sure, but I do believe that Rich’s Trump flag has swayed me.” …said no one ever.
Modern American political discourse has devolved into pure conflict in pursuit of the power to impose rather than compromise. Only the willfully blind fail to see this. And only the pitifully uneducated fail to understand where it leads. Each side exists mostly to demonize the other side, and whip people into frenzies about things that either don’t matter very much or that can never be addressed with one-sided power grabs. Of course, the candidates and parties pretend otherwise, claiming plans and powers that exist only in bad parliamentary systems at best, or in corrupt banana republic dictatorships at worst. But we live in a constitutional, representative republic with a healthy dose of democracy, where presidents lack the authority to do most of what presidential candidates claim they will do.
Many members of the media now choose to cosplay in this world of fantasy. Dana Bash certainly does, if her recent interview with the Harris/Walz ticket is any indication. I should preface this by saying that I think the very consequential Trump-Biden debate earlier this year was a welcome anomaly. Bash and Jake Tapper did a nice job, as the debate used a kind of throwback format that serves the needs of voters rather than the needs of candidates. Good for them. I would have asked different questions, but I cannot argue with the general approach and execution. Nobody seemed to notice that the format of the debate was partly responsible for exposing the severity of the President’s decline. And it was vital for the country to see the reality that the White House — and, to some extent, a complicit White House press pool — had obscured for months if not years. Candidates who want to occupy the Oval Office should be able to withstand the scrutiny of a true debate format — one that lacks audience feedback and does not permit the kind of cover that endless, empty, unmanaged verbal crossfire often provides. Lost in the catastrophe of the Biden performance was the mediocrity of Trump (and that is grading on a pretty steep curve). A lot of this wilting in the spotlight can be attributed to the format, which was a rare departure from the kind of carefully orchestrated political theater that describes most campaigns these days. We need more debates like this, but further supercharged with challenging questions that bear some resemblance to the office that the candidates seek. So, to the media, I say: Less cosplay. Less activism. And more serious journalism. Real journalists are lonely people. Nobody likes reality, or the people who insist on it. But that is the cross you chose to bear.
The Day One Fallacy
Sadly, I’d guess the debate was an anomaly, given the Harris/media honeymoon that ensued after Biden withdrew from the election. In the recent Dana Bash interview with the Democratic ticket, Bash’s first question resorted to the tired and irrelevant “Day One” trope. Ah, day one — it sounds so “bottom line”, so succinct, so emblematic of the effective executive problem solver. But it is total nonsense — precisely the kind of meaningless politician-speak that an effective interviewer should not tolerate in a response, let alone use in a question. Let alone the first question. It reeks of “I don’t know what I’m talking about, but this sure makes me sound like a tough reporter, so let’s go with it.” I almost give Harris a pass for her evasive answer because the question is inherently unanswerable.
The first day of a presidency consists of a ceremony, a passing of the torch with the prior president (unless that person is a petulant child named Donald Trump), a few international phone calls, a flashy signing ceremony for lawless executive orders (that mostly cancel prior lawless executive orders), and, finally, some really expensive parties with A-List invitation lists. That’s day one. Day two isn’t much better, as I’m sure the gravity of foreign policy and national security responsibilities begins to hit home, and the term “life and death decision” suddenly becomes literal. Oh sure, they try to get the PR train rolling early, but the truth is that presidents don’t create legislation. At least not constitutionally.
Presidential responsibility and authority are radically different from the dreamy caricatures that campaigns paint. The situation is even worse for members of the Senate and House, for whom any claims of “day one” action are risible lies. Individual members of Congress literally have no power to do anything beyond constituent services, let alone accomplish something — anything — on “day one”. Their job is to reach political compromise in the service of balanced legislation — the awareness of which seems to be entirely lost nowadays.
But the Day One Fallacy is just the beginning. Most of the issues that fuel the bullets in the political crossfire are blanks. They make a lot of noise but can change very little, at least without some rekindling of the spirit of compromise that makes our political system operate. But I suppose that’s a post for another day.
For now, my message to my peaceful and lovable — but misguided and brainwashed — neighbors, proudly leveraging their First Amendment rights, flying their flags and banners that scream into the void at a deaf and diffident universe, is this: Grow up. Become more informed about what matters. Understand that the other side actually does have one or two valid concerns, if in mostly caricature form. Understand that your candidate for president is an empty suit at best, and that the country needs and deserves much more.
Join me in refusing to vote for either of these people — not because they are “existential threats”, but because they are woefully unfit for what is, arguably, the most important and consequential job in the world. And because what they will do in office will bear almost no resemblance to the insulting rhetoric that they and a complicit media are spraying like anxious skunks, in the interest of stoking emotions and attracting eyeballs. Write in the name of someone serious. or at least experienced and minimally capable and articulate… Ben Sasse… Gavin Newsom… Nikki Haley… Josh Shapiro… Most of the people reading this will scream at two of those names, the specific pair varying by household. Fine — pick someone else. S/he won’t win, but you will send a real message to people who do matter. Either way, there is a difference between voting for someone whom your neighbor finds philosophically unacceptable vs. voting for someone who isn’t suitable for the job at all. The people currently on the ballot are not equipped to lead the country, intellectually, morally or politically. You need to see this and stop pretending otherwise. You are being gaslit.
Elections have effects beyond the immediate results, with messages that reverberate through the political class. An election is not just about some facile “binary choice” for the moment. So put the flags and signs in the drawer and send a real and lingering message to the folks who are genuinely afraid of you and the mere notion that you might one day discover the real power that you hold — that is, clear eyes and an open and informed mind. Of course, if you prefer limiting that power to neighborly eye rolls and spewing nonsense about binary choices and existential threats, hey, it’s a free country. Just do it with the full understanding that the empty, performative hackery on your front lawn means and accomplishes exactly nothing …and that your savior of a candidate will be occupied with issues that look nothing like what they seed your lever-wielding mind with during a campaign, in the name of cynical political expediency.