Besos - Macnolete (CC)

A well-run political campaign is like a successful sexual conquest, like it or not. On the campaign trail, the candidate’s goal is to win the support of the most voters obviously, but how? Often, the ways this is accomplished are not much different from delivering pick-up lines in a bar. It can be a series of trials and errors, searching for the right words to get the best response. And don’t think that process is purely innocent, and has absolutely no sexual overtones. Every adult learns how to read whether or not someone is attracted to them – if not, they end up hopelessly inept in social situations. Most political candidates (at least successful ones) are not socially stunted, so they use those lessons to determine whether or not their message is being well-received by their audiences.

Charisma counts in both the ballot box and bedroom, after all. And nothing gets the public interested in a campaign like a good old-fashioned sex scandal. Yes, the issues matter, but the public will respond just as favorably, if not more so, to being titillated. We’ve all heard it said that a story isn’t sexy enough to garner much attention, and as that principle applies in journalism, it also holds true in politics. Even much of the terminology used behind closed door by political power brokers are laden with sexual innuendos.

And those are just a few general situations where sex enters the political arena. The following installments will focus on some of the concepts mentioned here. For now, think twice about the speeches you hear, and the political stories you read. See whether or not you can see signs of sexual overtones in the words and actions of the major players. Next time you hear someone refer to a politician as “sexy”, seriously ask yourself if that might have helped that person win elections. You might be surprised at the answers you find.

Wisconsin Protesters - Patrick Finnegan (CC)

To say that unions were demonized in my childhood home would probably be an understatement. As a child raised in the Pittsburgh metropolitan region of Pennsylvania in the 1970′s, I regularly heard about the evils of the unions, usually in the context of steel mills and factories moving out of our area. The unions were “too greedy” and forced the businesses to leave to keep from losing money. Teachers that were unionized were probably just as evil, but we didn’t talk about that because we had a couple public school teachers in our family. But it was regularly pointed out that there were teachers that taught as a job, and then there were (parochial) teachers that treated teaching as a vocation. While it didn’t make much sense to me back then, I was made to understand early on that the teachers at my parochial school were “better” because they were paid less than the public school teachers. They chose lower wages because teaching was a calling (not unlike the priests and nuns), not a career. My father regularly said that if his workplace became unionized, he’d quit – he didn’t want to pay his “hard-earned money” to let union bosses live high on the hog.

Today I’m left thinking that my father and his attitudes about unions were probably just a couple decades ahead of their time. One poll today seems to show that a majority of Americans agree with him in one way or another. The politics of perception are taking center stage in Wisconsin, and the future of unions may very well be at stake once all is said and done. On the political end, it is only a question of time. How long will it take the media (mainstream or otherwise) to focus sincerely on one very important point? While the majority of protesters in Wisconsin now are representing the unions, that does not necessarily mean that they enjoy the support of the majority of the people. The unions are organized, and recruiting thousands to take up signs and show up for marches isn’t difficult. The Tea Party, while vocal, is not organized to the same extent as the unions. (Bluntly, the argument probably should be made that while the unions have the luxury of getting their members out to protest, everyone else is too busy doing what those workers aren’t doing – working.) It’s also fair to suppose that Tea Party members (or anyone else that happens to disagree with the unions) probably don’t have the benefit of doctors willing to write them excuses from work.

While the people’s perception that public service employees make more money than private sector workers, there is another important point to consider. They are called “public service” workers for a reason. Unions for state employees have distorted the meaning of these jobs. No one should be taking a job with the government on any level with the idea that it is a means to get rich. Like my family’s old argument about teachers treating their profession as a vocation as opposed to a career, there was a time when working for the government honestly meant making the choice to serve the people. Hopefully it still does for at least some of the public sector workers out there.

Ed Morrissey summed up the situation probably better than I ever could today. While there are plenty of starry eyed idealists out there wishing it were otherwise, the bottom line is that this battle isn’t about workers or their rights. It is about the bottom line of the politicians.

The Democrats who fled the state didn’t do so to protect workers. They did it to protect their campaign fundraising. If Republicans back down while the public gives them this much support, they won’t get another chance to free workers from forced dues payments and involuntary union membership as a prerequisite for public service.

The time when unions protected workers from employers is over. Now the workers need protection from the unions.

So, way back when I was around 13-years-old, I worked on my first campaign with my parents. They were campaigning for a Republican running for our State Legislator’s office, primarily because they were upset with the incumbent for voting against something they wanted. The whole campaign centered on that one issue that ironically enough I don’t remember now. Perhaps that is a good thing, because the real issue wasn’t about the meat and bones of that particular bill. Our State Representative voted against it because he knew his constituents wouldn’t like the riders attached to it. Yes, I got thrown in the deep-end on my first dip into the wonderful world of politics. Not only did I get an introduction into the intricacies of the legislative process, but I also got a taste of dirty politics.

The first campaign I ever worked was as corrupt as one could get, sad but true. Unfortunately, the candidate was running on a flat-out lie. The whole platform was that he was “for” the piece of legislation our State Representative voted against, with no mention of the nasty stuff that was attached to it. My parents didn’t know this until afterward – thankfully, the guy lost anyway, or else they really would have been angry.

So, at the ripe old age of 13, I learned a very important lesson – the game of politics is corrupt (and for that matter, it is a game.) Politics is the mother of all games, including a mix of ones many children play – from chess, to Monopoly and Risk. There is a great deal of strategy involved. Conversely, there are many players that have no problem moving pieces when no one is looking, or stealing a few dollars from the bank. When I explored why candidates run earlier, I left out the most cynical reason – personal gain. While comparatively few start out with that motive, sadly many end up running for re-election for that reason. They get used to the perks, the lifestyle, and lose sight of why they started in the first place.

But back to the whole concept of politics being corrupt, this is not something new. Idealists think that they can change it, assuming that they’re not in denial about it in the first place. Sadly, that’s not the case, and even my youngest son figure this out back when he was six-years-old, during the 2008 Election. He recognized that it wasn’t exactly fair to have everyone running around saying nasty things about each other – for that matter, it didn’t seem like they were acting like adults, as far as he was concerned.

And then there is the old adage on this matter, or at least the paraphrased version: “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The original quote is far more meaningful if not as catchy:

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”

1. – The business of politics is dirty. This is not news, and was used as an argument against granting women the vote – we didn’t need to be concerning ourselves with all that filth when there was filth enough at home to clean! But for whatever reason, people selectively forget this when they get it in their heads to argue political points from a religious perspective. They forget that religion is meant to be sacred – decidedly not dirty. Just think to yourself, every time someone brings God to the political table, they’re smearing mud on what should be pure.

2. – Religion is personal. Sure, it’s been said that politics is personal. It’s a nice saying, but outside of the wonderful world of political junkies, it’s generally inaccurate. Most people do not live and breathe politics. However, religion is invariably personal. Yes, there is a limited number of religions out there, but the way those religions are observed (or not) is limited only by the number of people on this planet. There is even diversity of faith within any given religious organization. Suggesting that political bodies govern based on any religious precepts is the greatest attack on religious freedom. Suggesting that political bodies protect the rights of the people to observe their personal belief systems as they choose is the true way to guarantee Freedom of Religion.

3. – Yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as secular morality. Anticipating the inevitable argument that religion is the basis of many laws, atheists are not necessarily immoral. They are capable of recognizing that there is good and bad in this world, and that it is a good thing to avoid doing bad things. Humans are generally moral creatures by nature, and while useful in encouraging people to be well-behaved, they do not “need” the threat of retribution from a mystical force to keep themselves in line. Earthly punishments are typically enough to keep most in line, and the ones that don’t seem to be able to follow the rules wouldn’t anyway. There’s a reason why serial killers and career criminals are called aberrations.

4. – Like men, all religions were created equal. This one has gotten me into quite a few arguments over the years, primarily because I do not hide the fact that I distrust all religions equally. Every religion has skeletons in its closet. Every religion has caused men to act in a negative manner at some point in its history – some still do. They have all been the source of war and death at one point or another. And it doesn’t matter “when” in that history atrocities have occurred for the sake of a given faith. The fact that it did occur once (or more times) means that a similar situation could happen again.

5. – No religion is “right” – no religion is “wrong”. On the purely theoretical level, there is no way to prove which faith is right or wrong. That is the very nature of faith – believing in something without the benefit of proof. People following religions are the ones doing right and wrong, but qualitative statements for or against any given religion based on the actions of the followers are an exercise in stupidity as well. See number two here. No matter how organized a given religion may be, there is no way to absolutely control all of the followers, period. There will always be someone that takes things too far, and does things that are contrary to the precepts of a given faith, typically through misinterpretation of sacred texts. We call it “radicalism”. If these people were doing what the majority of a given faith believe is “right”, then we wouldn’t bother pointing out that they were on the fringe, now would we? And to keep things fair, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism all have radicals. I don’t typically come across ones from the last two, but I regularly get abuse from the first.

From the beginning, there has never really been any argument over the fact that Obama’s father was Muslim, and that Obama himself had attended a Muslim school for a short period of time in his early childhood. Today, ABC posits that there is a definite prejudice against Muslims when it comes to voters considering candidates for public office. Yes, this is the land of the free, and yes, we’re generally more tolerant than most other nations, but it’s been under a decade since 9/11. Ground Zero remains under construction, and there’s a heated debate on what should be done with the real estate surrounding it. We’re still at war with Al Qaeda, and there is no honest end in sight. Comparisons with Pearl Harbor have been made many times, so here we go again. Would anyone honestly be screaming that we’re intolerant bastards if we were against voting in individuals of Japanese descent to high ranking offices in the years following that bombing, particularly if WWII had dragged out much longer than it did?

Now, that addresses the general distrust of Muslims in general, justified or not. It’s the truth, ugly as it may be. As for the perception of Obama, I’ve been thinking for some time now that it’s not so much about thinking that he is actually a Muslim, as it is a matter of not perceiving him as a Christian. We are still being bombarded with stories of potential terrorist attacks by radical Muslims, and spent the last several years being spoonfed the concept that any Muslim can end up being twisted into a dangerous radical. (Ironically enough, that theory is most often supported by radical Christians, but I digress, or not…) Religion has been politicized severely since 2001, and sadly, it has nurtured a climate where Christians seem to be increasingly of the opinion that if you’re not obviously with them, you’re against them. If you’re against them, more likely than not, you’re Muslim (assuming you’re not just one of those evil atheists.) Since Obama doesn’t wear his faith on his sleeve, he’s not obviously with the Christians, so he must be what? Oh yeah, Muslim. Rewind to the previously known information about his father and his childhood, and there’s the likely root of most of the current rash of incorrect perceptions.

Politics is perception, and when people are silly enough to ignore that First Amendment separation of religion and politics, the perception of public officials’ religious beliefs become relevant to their political careers. (Yes, I know I didn’t say “church and state”, so don’t bother yelping about it. My standard answer for that is that the framers saw the folly in mixing faith and politics, and chose terms that fit their times, and mollified the more religious amongst them. Politics is filthy. Religion doesn’t deserve to be made dirty by it.)

While claiming that the American people have never shown such a desire for self-governance since the years before the Revolutionary War is an excellent selling point for Rasmussen and his book claiming that is precisely where we are headed, there is one particular problem that seems to be overlooked in this theory. The Libertarians and Tea Party activists are acutely aware of the “wild card” that could easily cause Rasmussen’s theory to fall like a house of cards – the collective attention deficit disorder of the voting public.

Yes, voters are getting annoyed with power-grabbing behaviors in Washington and beyond by presumptuous politicians that assume that the people will love anything that the government can do for them. Perhaps there are even a few that bother to recall those historic words from a Democrat long ago, imploring that the public refrain from expecting the government to do too much for the people. But regardless of general opinions of the people that the government is overstepping bounds on issues like health care, there is still a larger force in motion. Society has long since recognized that government can be expected to provide benefits of all kinds, and at least according to one Scotsman, once that happens the voters tend to elect candidates that are most likely to grant the most benefits to the people. Couple that theory with the general lack of attention that is given to the political process in general by the masses, and it is unlikely that Rasmussen’s contention that we are on the brink of some sort of revolution is valid. Bluntly, the public is far too apathetic, and while they are not exactly pleased with the way things are, there are far too many other things keeping the masses busy to bother doing anything about it. Yes, there will be vocal minorities, and yes, they will garner the attention of the masses from time to time, but that fleeting attention offers no real promise of action.

That is not to say that action is not needed – it is. But beyond the wishful thinking of Rasmussen hoping to boost book sales, and political activists hoping to cause real change – not the fluff and stuff the public was sold a couple years ago – it is yet another passing distraction for the vast majority to talk about at the watercoolers or in line at Starbuck’s. The real problem isn’t getting the people to agree that government needs to be reined in, it is getting the people to actually do something that will result in that change we can believe in.

To be fair, I admit to going over the top in naming this post, because it isn’t absolutely true – thankfully. However, it is difficult to find hard political journalism out there these days that has a firm grasp on reality. I suspect that the observations I mentioned above focused on the tea party movement primarily because that is the issue du jour – there is quite a bit of material out there on it. But if you’re going to start talking about the unreality of political journalism in America today, perhaps you should point out the elephant in the room – racism.

To be sure, the tea party movement has left us with many opportunities to explore the issue of racism. Why it hasn’t been done in earnest falls under what I’ve come to call a journalistic taboo. At best, it would open the proverbial can of worms President Carter broke the seal on when he suggested that America wasn’t ready for Obama in the White House. In a practical sense, it would make it more difficult for the administration to get anything done, since it could effectively justify civil rights organizations calling out the President to be their anointed leader in their cause. But all of that is assuming that journalists would approach it in the context of Obama the man, as opposed to focusing on the nature of racism in America in general.

And there, I’ve said it. There is racism in America. It is an ugly truth, and reality of the situation is that the perpetrators of it are being given a pass on it by journalists. That is a generalization, and bluntly, this is focused on the rule as opposed to the exceptions. When I say this, I mean that out of the countless times that the mainstream press has covered racist sentiments being paraded about by tea partiers, it has been little more than an aside – it has been rare when these individuals have been brought to task for these actions, called racist, or had to face rebuttals from civil rights leaders because the journalists bothered to make the calls to get those statements.

Ironically enough, I ended up thinking on this purely because I was accused of appearing like a Dixiecratic jingoist on Twitter. To summarize the context, since it involved quite a few posts from multiple users, @Shoq (a progressive politics Twitter icon for those of you that don’t know) was encouraging posts on GOP campaign slogans. Several racist posts appeared in the Twitterstream, and I reposted one to a local political journalist because he had pointed out that Jay-Z had been engaged in some racist activities of his own, against whites. The entire situation was an exercise in bad political humor, but was obviously taken rather seriously by at least one person.

At first, I started thinking twice about my “image” on Twitter, but my thoughts quickly shifted to the lack of reality in political journalism. While many of the posts that suggested new campaign slogans for the GOP were in bad taste, they were real. There was no tap-dancing around the issue of racism. They were what I have no doubt many journalists wish they could say when faced with the blatant hatred they see daily from many in the political scene. Some of the denial of reality in journalism today is probably from journalists, and some of it may be the result of editorial policies that cater to advertisers. Regardless of the source, the bottom line is that we’ve moved to the point where “news”, particularly where politics is concerned, is not about being neutral and reporting what is real. If the people want reality, they need to look beyond the headlines – even to places like Twitter and the blogosphere. But that’s not news either.