On Politics

Nixon: "I understand the system. I can control it. Maybe not control it completely, but tame it enough to make it do some good"
Student: "It sounds like your talking about a wild animal"
Nixon: "Maybe I am"
Nixon (1995)

The nature of politics is channeling the flow of energy. Like an engineer building a dam to control the flow of a river, good politicians use rhetoric to channel human energies into tangible ends. The energy isn't created so much as it is harnessed. Although some may use rhetoric to enflame the masses, they are playing off of preexisting grievances. The reservoir of energy was waiting to be used, such politicians just "top off" the anger.

The political energy is generated by individuals, from day-to-day experiences. Our feelings about what's right or wrong with the world are derived from the little annoyances and glories we encounter. But while creation occurs at the personal level, direction and release is a matter of the collective. When the masses are grouped under a common ideology, the execution of political energies has another name: power.

The efficient direction and release of power is what politics is all about. Power needs no rational justification for it's use, it's existence is it's own justification. How we judge "good" from "bad" politics is how we square the effects with our own value systems, in subjective terms. Judging the effects of policy changes is definately a long term endeavour. However, judging politicians is a matter of how well they channel energies into they're own ends. That is, how well they avoid disaster.

A disaster for the dam builder will probably be obvious right away. Either it holds water or it doesn't. How well the politician directs and focuses the energy of his power vehicle, while avoiding collateral damage and waste, is an indicator. Every action, every speech, every offhand comment will have an observable effect. Achieving ends with as little unnecessary action as possible is best. This could be called "elegance".

Control of political energies is unreliable at best. There is a temporary window for using these energies. It must either be expended or dispersed. Fire or disarm. People have a tendency to smolder and quietly nurse resentments. This is a dangerous kind of weapon to leave lying around. Without direction, a neglected mass may explode.

If you're trying to counter the momentum of an opponent, remember that these energies cannot be stopped without a expenditure of equal and opposite energy. This is waste. It's better to counter the thrust of an opponent by redirecting it into a harmless direction. Or, better yet, redirect to your own ends. Never box in an opponent. Always leave them an avenue to retreat into. Open this channel before conflict, and turn them into it. Don't try to obliterate an enemy. Some would have you believe that this is the cost holding political principles. That's false. Any principle, no matter how noble, must yield to reality. Else, what good are they?

Obama Paranoia

Paul Krugman's latest column describes the spite-based Republican opposition to Obama. Krugman cites several examples over the past 20 years of post-Reagan-era tactics. I think there's something else to it, though. There is a very strong sense of paranoia in the middle-america right wing activist. They all seem to believe there's something inherently unwholesome and sinister about Obama's motives (secret motives).

You could chalk this up to the same old anti-Democrat mentality (e.g. Whitewater), or the effect of Fox-news fear mongering. I think this misses the target, though. Fox helps grow doubt and suspicion of the Obama Administration, but that doubt has a natural base before Fox exploits it.

I believe that what scares these people most of all is Obama's lack of emotion and drama. The man is almost always as cool as a cucumber. This is very different from the images of the left to which we've grown accustomed. Most notably in recent memory: Howard Dean. Manic and goofy, a smiley nutjob. That image is still burned into our brains, and Obama directly contradicts that "knowledge" of what the left is.

We can adjust to this image in one of two ways. Either we revise our conceptions of what the left looks and sounds like, or we conclude that the man is simply very good at hiding his "true nature". Obviously the fringe Right has chosen the latter option. This assumption is an excellent breeding ground for suspicion and paranoia, because if the man is this good at disguising himself, there's no knowing what else he could be hiding...