The public has begun to see that left versus right is not the name of the game. "Left" and "right," after all, have not had a consequential public disagreement in many years. The split that is inflaming the public mood is the one between insiders and outsiders.

I agree that Left/Right distinctions don't matter nearly the way that they used to. But newspeople have peddled this insider/outsider nonsense for a while, and I can't buy it.

Perot was an outsider in the extreme, at least politically. (I have trouble regarding any billionaires as 'outsiders' in any extensive sense, unless they are the insane progeny of other billionaires, and thus got their money 'outside the box.') And Perot's "outsider" involvement was just enough to slice the conservative vote for two elections and win Clinton eight years. We should certainly appreciate his contribution, but I don't think we should attribute much weight to Perot's outsider credentials when we're talking about what wins elections.

Jesse Ventura was an outsider, got elected because of a weirdly high youth turnout, and flamed out spectacularly. I suspect his Predator co-star will share his fate shortly.

Howard Dean was an outsider--Deaniacs, I ask you to forgive my use of the past tense; Dean is toast, no matter how much we may hope for his revival--and now, he will get a good spot in Kerry's cabinet, or will be paid off with future consideration. Thus do outsiders come in from the cold.

The press would like to have you believe that a governor from one of America's most populous states, son of perhaps the most resumé-intensive insider ever, was an outsider. Maybe relative to Al Gore, he was an outsider. But that's not saying much at all.

No, it's not about insider/outsider. It's about the fact that the American populace can no longer sustain the intellectual effort that it takes for democracy to flourish. We can understand The Terminator, if we're not too baked, but this politics stuff is too heavy, you know?

These outsiders aren't really outsiders, unless you limit the inside/outside dichotomy to considerations of how many years one has spent in office. By any rational definition, all these ostensible outsiders are among the most connected people in American society.

Politicians per se are not the problem with American politics. America is the problem. We have come to substitute fame and wealth for repute, and then repute for genuine virtue.

In a few more years, our love of snappy electoral narratives will cause us the sort of grief we haven't faced in more than half a century. Unless, of course, we finally realize that picking less-capable officials does little to help us fix our problems.

Posted by Matt Davis at February 15, 2004 07:27 PM

Thanks Matt - your points are definitely valid (and ones I should have remembered myself). I was just feeling more disempowered than usual and a bit pissed at the dirty tricks.

And you are doubly right that our real problem is an America that is too distracted by the wrappings and less interested in the policies and politics - enough so that we have to seriously worry about whether our democracy can survive. Yet it is definitely too early to give up the fight and step one is getting rid of Bush.

Later today I belatedly read my latest Jim Hightower Lowdown and was reminded that we need to be looking at the problem in the long term:

Whichever Democrat defeats George W. Bush will immdeiately be confronted with the Tom DeLays in Congress, an army of naysaying corporate lobbyists, a hostile media establishment, avaricious Wall Stree manipulators, the military-industrial complex, and the other forces of "No". Beating Bush is merely the start. The next day, we must redouble our efforts to build and unite a true grassroots political movement that not only can elect progressive local officials, governors, Congress members, senators, an presidents -- but also can sustain them in office with organizaed grassroots power so that our officials can govern as progressives.

Amen.

Posted by Mary at February 15, 2004 07:54 PM

The next day, we must redouble our efforts to build and unite a true grassroots political movement that not only can elect progressive local officials, governors, Congress members, senators, an presidents -- but also can sustain them in office with organizaed grassroots power so that our officials can govern as progressives.

Hightower rules! It's almost amazing that Texas could give us Bush, Hightower, and Ivins.

I've come close to giving up hope that the movement he describes can come to pass. But the ability to talk to like-minded folks far away does help.

Posted by Matt Davis at February 15, 2004 08:23 PM

What kerry's surrogrates and Toricelli did was slimy. However, if Dean couldn't respond to it and neutralize the attack how could he confront Rove and co.? As long as the Republicans specialize in win at all costs politics we need Candidates who can beat it. My regret is that nobody went after Kerry hard enough to see if he can respond.

Posted by CalDem at February 15, 2004 09:46 PM

"Massachusetts Liberal," eh?

You mean like Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, John Adams, John Hancock, the rabble-rousers who threw the Boston Tea Party, the Minutemen at Lexington and Concord, and the wild-eyed radicals who fought at Bunker Hill?

That who we're talking about, Karl?

Posted by Zak at February 16, 2004 07:58 AM

I hope Kerry hits upon that same retort, Zak. An inspired rhetorical thrust.

Posted by Matt Davis at February 16, 2004 11:38 AM

I agree, Zak. Hope you'll actually take the initiative and send them an e-mail with that suggestion.

Mary, thanks for posting a link to that insightful Perry article.

Posted by AlanF at February 17, 2004 08:47 AM

Hello

Posted by politics at February 19, 2004 12:15 AM