Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Why is the approval rating for Congress so low?

roachboy · 10-18-2007, 10:07 AM

well here's the problem--for me anyway---i dont understand how it came to pass that (a) the midterms were interpreted as providing anything like a single message to anyone about anything, much less (b) some kind of clear position about--not to mention a position against--the war in iraq.

it seems to me that the only clear message was that the modus operandi of bushworld was unacceptable. the midterms seemed to me entirely a huge rejection of the bush people and the paleo-conservatism for which they stand.

another way of looking at this:

paralysis in iraq has been doubled by paralysis in washington--so if there's a message in it, it seems to me about cognitive dissonance and a bizarre-o attempt to normalize paralysis and/or defeat. but that's as speculative as the takes on the midterms that impute to it a clear message on iraq.

what makes me suspicious of this "clear message" business is simple: the actually existing balance of parties in congress both houses is such that imputing a Mandate to the democrats is basically setting them up to fail. imputing a "bring the boys home" mission to the democrats is setting them up to fail.

so whose interpretation is this, that there is some single, clear message to november?

to the extent that this notion of a mission or mandate is unhinged from the realities of political trench warfare in a tightly divided congress which--against all reason (in my view) republican party discipline appears to still function---paralysis and expectations unhinged from it appear to be THE issue, THE problem. discussions underway above--which are fine in themselves, seem to me to all operate inside this bigger problem, as symptoms of it.

but i still have this sneaking impression that this mandate business is (a) a conservative meme that has migrated out of that hermetic little media world and (b) reinforced by the surreal "understanding" of democratic process that you get on tv--which as a medium full of talking heads who talk in roughly the same way about certain things, seems uncapable of thinking in terms of multiplicity of meanings, looking continually to reduce uncertainty and division by generating the illusion of unanimity or "message" or "mandate"---remember the reagan "landslide" that was created out of a victory involving 27% of the registered voters?

accepting this kind of narration of a fractured, incoherent polity seems like being willing to eat a hamburger that someone else has already chewed once, because you are too lazy to chew a virgin burger for yourself.

10-18-2007, 10:07 AM	#13 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	well here's the problem--for me anyway---i dont understand how it came to pass that (a) the midterms were interpreted as providing anything like a single message to anyone about anything, much less (b) some kind of clear position about--not to mention a position against--the war in iraq. it seems to me that the only clear message was that the modus operandi of bushworld was unacceptable. the midterms seemed to me entirely a huge rejection of the bush people and the paleo-conservatism for which they stand. another way of looking at this: paralysis in iraq has been doubled by paralysis in washington--so if there's a message in it, it seems to me about cognitive dissonance and a bizarre-o attempt to normalize paralysis and/or defeat. but that's as speculative as the takes on the midterms that impute to it a clear message on iraq. what makes me suspicious of this "clear message" business is simple: the actually existing balance of parties in congress both houses is such that imputing a Mandate to the democrats is basically setting them up to fail. imputing a "bring the boys home" mission to the democrats is setting them up to fail. so whose interpretation is this, that there is some single, clear message to november? to the extent that this notion of a mission or mandate is unhinged from the realities of political trench warfare in a tightly divided congress which--against all reason (in my view) republican party discipline appears to still function---paralysis and expectations unhinged from it appear to be THE issue, THE problem. discussions underway above--which are fine in themselves, seem to me to all operate inside this bigger problem, as symptoms of it. but i still have this sneaking impression that this mandate business is (a) a conservative meme that has migrated out of that hermetic little media world and (b) reinforced by the surreal "understanding" of democratic process that you get on tv--which as a medium full of talking heads who talk in roughly the same way about certain things, seems uncapable of thinking in terms of multiplicity of meanings, looking continually to reduce uncertainty and division by generating the illusion of unanimity or "message" or "mandate"---remember the reagan "landslide" that was created out of a victory involving 27% of the registered voters? accepting this kind of narration of a fractured, incoherent polity seems like being willing to eat a hamburger that someone else has already chewed once, because you are too lazy to chew a virgin burger for yourself. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 10-18-2007 at 10:10 AM..