Err America

Bush has been in power for two terms. This may coincide with the rise of conservative "news". Originally, it was Rush Limbaugh who gave voice to conservative views during Clinton's own two term presidency. Then, Fox News network essentially was one long apologia for the president.

The "left" after two consecutive presidential losses, both seemingly decided on the narrowest of margins pondered the reasons for the losses. Other than conspiratorial reasons (voting machines made by two brothers that are major Republican resources), one factor was the need for a liberal news source, and thus "Air America" with form SNL guy, Al Franken.

But I wonder how well Air America achieves its goals. Left-leaning listeners would find themselves quickly changing the dial from Limbaugh since he would spend his show just insulting liberals. Name calling and lack of fair reasoning was so common on the show that listeners would wince.

As much as it's a stereotype, many left listeners tend to be more educated (not everyone, to be sure) and they simply didn't want to hear the same kind of dialogue that Limbaugh spewed coming from the left. The left didn't have to sink to this level of inanity. Indeed, the left would prefer to listen to a more even-keeled NPR than the spoutings of Franken.

Where the left have gravitated to are the twin shows from Comedy Central, namely, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report, both which satirize and skewer politicians. And many viewers "watch" this through non-traditional ways, via You Tube rips.

Satire is a pretty rare form of comedy these days. Stewart and Colbert do it as well as anyone, partly because what they are saying makes some sense. Sure, sometimes they gravitate to the seemingly incoherent rambling of Congressmen discussing the Internet as a series of "tubes" (which is not really all that inaccurate). But for the most part, they do what they do in a thoughtful way.

I do find that Stewart has pointed out something highly relevant to politics, and he did this when he was invited on Crossfire lambasting left and right for endlessly bickering, taking obvious stances on the left and right, and not really trying to have an intelligent discussion. This criticism eventually rung so true that the show was cancelled.

It still rings as true now as it ever did.

America loves its sports. Fans can be rabid supporters of a local team, whether it be pro or college. Redskins fans love to hate the Cowboys. Maryland fans yell F*** Duke, even as Duke doesn't really care. Despite how partisan a fan may be, they can generally understand that their views are a bit silly. For example, ask a Maryland fan what they think of, say, University of Washington, and they simply don't care either way. It's off in the PAC-10. Their venom is set at Duke. Silly, but harmless. They can peacefully exist with, say, non Duke-ites, no problem. In the end, it's just a game.

Politics, however, has become completely divisive, that is, for those who care about politics, which is still a rather small percentage of the population. Many who don't care one whit about politics find the Red Sox-Yankees hatred much more to their liking. It's hatred in a fun sort of way.

On the other hand, devoted Democrats and devoted Republicans find they are rooting for their own team. Their passion is so strong, they can't understand the other side. Democrats are convinced that Republicans are uneducated country yokels with the Bible by their side and ready to put infidels on the cross to burn. Republicans are convinced that Democrats are tree hugging, heathens, lacking morals and conviction, believing in political correctness, and ready to give breaks to those of color even as whites struggle to make a living.

Indeed, elections are often framed as to why the opponent is the devil, rather than why their own party can do anything good. How many people can't stand Bush right now? You want a solution to this? Move to a red state. En masse. Red states are sparsely populated. Instead, there's a lot of soapbox ranting.

In the last election, the Republicans were able to mobilize a group of voters that often chose not to vote. Ironically enough, many of the religious right weren't voting. A wedge issue was brought up, and oddly enough, it benefitted both sides: gay marriage. Gay marriage pushed the agenda further for gays and lesbians who had not give much thought that gay marriage was something they should pursue at this point in time. It also created fear among religious conservatives that if they didn't go to the polls to vote against referendums, they would be legalizing something they found distasteful (which wasn't going to happen, but let that not stop someone from alleging this might be the case).

And, there were still plenty of folks who didn't care either way. They just want to buy a house, raise kids, get on with life. Meanwhile, a third of the population decides what happens to the rest of the country.

Sometimes I wish Ross Perot hadn't dropped out (though if he had stayed in, George Senior might have been re-elected). Although Perot's party, such as it was, was something of a cult of personality, it would have given rise to some other party, some other voice. We're so stuck in our two party differences that we are bankrupt in ideas about how to improve things.

Parties like the "Green Party" might have something to say, but third parties have been branded as the lunatic fringe, as if the majority parties aren't themselves lunatic. It's funny how the American populace deals with this. Every few years they just switch parties. Better the party they know then the party they don't.

People have picked their teams, and wave their flags for their teams. It certainly seems a lot easier than thinking.