As these population concentrations react to the targeting, the old axiom of voter turnout comes into play, gaining in impact. "The Center for the Study of the American Electorate, put 2012 voter turnout at 57.5% of all eligible voters, compared to 62.3% who voted in 2008 and 60.4% who cast ballots in 2004. In 2000, the turnout rate was 54.2%." This means more than 90 million eligible voters did not exercise their right to cast a ballot. Of course, the cause(s) for this lack of voter participation is/are less known. I suspect the limited choice of decent candidates speaks volumes on this topic.
When looking at voter participation in the above chart, of the 25 states with the lowest turnout, 16 are "red" states. If the voter turnout in these states was 25% higher, would Romney now be President? Is the country truly split 50-50 as some offer? Or is it more conservative? The point towards which I'm driving is that presenting recent Presidential election results as revealing a sharp and narrow divide in the nation may not be the case. At the least, the narrowness of the divide can be challenged. Once challenged, I go back to voter turnout (Senate results) and gerrymandering (House results).
While accepting there are two dominant views of the way forward, the actions within Congress and the relationship between POTUS and Congress speak more to political power for the sake of power than to honestly held political conviction. Only two things matter - get elected and remain in office. Both require enormous amounts of money and extensive political machinery. In order to access the funding and be supported by the machinery, the elected aspirant/incumbent is beholding to those senior members of the respective political party and their supporters. The enormity of the funding and political machinery depend on polarization to excite and mobilize the respective political bases (which are fed constant crap by supportive media), from which the targeted voters are sourced. As we watch, each side demonizes the other. Surrogates attack relentlessly, often with neither dignity nor civility, let alone reasonable arguments. Enter the corrupt purveyors of wealth and media mouthpieces, on both sides, to stoke the fires. Center point to obtaining and maintaining political power – voter turnout. Then, once in office, decisions are most often made to benefit the corrupt purveyors of wealth, so the coffers for the next election remain full, but not for deeply held convictions.
Were it otherwise, the constitutionally designed system of "conference" would be more prevalent. It doesn't excite the bases to report that one side is compromising with the other. It doesn't excite the bases to report that the national needs are being put ahead of local desires. It doesn't excite the bases to report that reason is trumping emotion. The bases must be maintained in a continuous state of agitation, so their next votes can be assured. (That's why the continuous talk of 2016.) Get the turnout from those where it is needed most, relying not on folks voting for something/someone, but their emotional reaction of voting against something/someone. And it most assuredly doesn't excite the purveyors of wealth to seek reasonable compromise.
Points:
- Voter turnout from key areas trumps and highlights nationwide divides.
- The division is not as narrow as some would hold, with it being likely more voters lean to the "red" column.
- Election and re-election, not serving the nation, dominates the permanent political class.
- Accessing the funding and political machinery are absolutes for the aspirant and incumbent.
- Access to the funding and political machinery is controlled by permanent political elite in each party.
- Funding and political machinery depend on polarization.
- Polarization requires accentuating differences, leading to convincing key blocks of voters to turnout.
- Continuously agitating the political base in pursuit of polarization is essential for retaining support.
- Obstruction in Congress agitates the political bases.
- Agitating the political base enables targeting certain voters.
- Targeted voters in positive turnouts enable one party or the other to obtain/retain power, enabling them to support their respective financial benefactors.
- The corrupt purveyors of wealth and media mouthpieces benefit from the polarization.
- The cycle continues.
Thus, I hold that it more a matter of political survival for the sake of power, than it is for deeply held convictions, that leads to the lack of cooperation observed in the 113th Congress. Yes, of course, there are certainly difference in views on large vs. small government at play. Yet, perhaps in a naive sense, if it were only differing views and not the pursuit of political power that motivated the process, then Congress would come together to find the best way to solve the health care problem, as well as the other myriad issues facing our nation. The critical issues would be acknowledged, two (or more) suggested solutions would bubble up from the committees and a conference would find a compromise solution. Today, however, compromise within Congress or between POTUS and Congress do not appear possible, as power-for-power's-sake rules. Leadership: missing in action. Negotiation: missing in action. Serving the nation: missing in action. Work ethic: missing in action. Solutions: missing in action. Perpetual campaigning: alive and well. Pursuing key voters via negativity: endless.
Personal view, each nomination and piece of legislation should have an up or down vote. No more Omnibus spending bills. No political and procedural maneuvering, such as done for the ACA. Bring each and every nominee, full piece of legislation, spending bill, etc. to the floor for an up or down vote. While I'm at it, Congress should work 5 days per week, as Lott and Daschle recently opined.
Any way, no clear way forward presents itself to me. I see no unifying leader, either present or on the horizon, from either party who can draw the nation and its permanent political class together to deal with the issues in constructive fashion.
