Political punditry has become an incredibly huge business and pastime in the United States these days. Consider:

Newscasts operating 24-hours-a-day have talking heads seemingly asserting 24-hours a day...Always-confident newspaper columnists get huge readerships analyzing and predicting...Left and right talk radio shows, guests and listeners/viewers scream and rant as they react to events and predict what will come next...And have you EVER read a blogger who is not certain that he/she/it is correct (and that the dumb, ol’ mainstream media and bloggers on the other side of the political street have it all wrong)?

But if you look at history you have to seriously ask: if you go back a year or more later and see what was spoken or written, did many of these predictions truly nail it?

The bottom line is that much of what happens in politics in terms of how parties maneuver, how they respond, how they go on the offense and play defense and how the public perceives candidates often depends on the unforeseen and unexpected rather than anticipated events. And that’s what’s now unfolding in the Middle East: a growing crisis sure to have enormous impact on future generations -- and one that will change previous political calculations before it’s significantly defused.

Last week, in his indispensable Crystal Ball analysis, University of Virginia Political Scientist Larry Sabato put the Middle East crisis under his political microscope and noted how it CAN influence mid-term elections. Among other things, Sabato (who has a GOOD batting average on prognostications) notes that the Middle East crisis sucks up all the media air and makes it hard for political challengers to get media coverage. He also notes that it displaces the Iraq War as the lead story, which is good news for GOPers.

On the other hand, he notes that there are several factors which don’t make a GOP benefit a “given” in this case. Sabato concludes:

“The final electoral truth is that the Mideast war would somehow have to help President Bush and the Republican Congress to climb out of the polling cellar in the time remaining before Americans stream to the polls. While there may appear opportunities ripe for exploitation by the GOP, so far nothing of the sort has happened as the fighting rages on.

This unexpected and nasty little war is an unwelcome reminder of just how quickly the political sands can shift, and it is further warning--if any were needed--that predictions about an election months away are often as unreliable and unsteady as those sands.”

History and political history are filled with landscape changing events such as: the Cuban missile crisis and how it solidified JFK’s image; the assassination of JFK; domestic politics master Lyndon Johnson becoming President, passing a huge social agenda, then getting bogged down in the Vietnam war; the ascension of Pope John Paul II and his role in changing Eastern Europe and bringing about the fall of Communism; the seizing of American hostages in Tehran and how it put the final nail in the sagging Carter Presidency; how 9/11 transformed George Bush from a seemingly weak, unsure President taking office in a disputed election into a President with a strong image; Hurricane Katrina and how government response to Hurricane Katrina wiped out much of the positive imagery enveloping George Bush.

There are many others. The world is still in the embryonic stages of this new crisis, but here are a few factors to pencil in if you’re trying to figure out the political impact:

What was the administration’s policy towards the Middle East in the days leading up to the latest crisis? Josh Marshall this week linked to a troubling passage that suggested George Bush had virtually written the region off early on in his term. So what has been the policy for the past 6 years? Has there been consistent attention paid to the region? If so, how? What was done and what could have perhaps been done differently -- or better?

The Brewing Iranian Crisis: The Bush administration is starting with very little credibility left as it begins to warn of a growing Iranian threat. Some on the left automatically don’t believe it and warn that the neocons are just itching to go to war again and putting propaganda out to set the stage for it. Some on the right automatically support whatever the administration asserts. But if you read news reports, it’s clear that there IS a growing threat. It has also been a journalistic and academic “given” for years that Hezbollah is linked with Tehran. Iran is pushing the envelope. So how much further on several fronts (its support for Hezbollah; its provocative comments about Israel; its nuclear program) will it push it? And what if it pushes the envelope most strongly close to the elections. What will Washington do -- and will its policies be accepted by many Americans or dismissed as political posturing? And how will whatever Washington decides to do influence voters?

Israel and the Jews: How will attitudes towards Israel in particular and Jews in general impact American elections? There is a danger in the tenor of comments coming from some on the left these days that could easily be taken as anti-Semitic. Now, that kind of statement always provokes: “So if you criticize Israel you’re automatically labeled anti-Semitic!” Not necessarily. People can criticize Israel’s policy, the loss of innocent life, and debate who “started it” -- but there is a line that can be crossed. And some on the left come close to crossing it as they make blanket generalizations about Jews. Not all “f--- the Jews“ comments come from people arrested on DUIs in Malibu these days. So how will this play at the voting booth? Will there be backlash to the backlash or by election time will Americans be more critical of Israel and America’s large financial and political commitment to it?

The fact is that there are any number of subsidiary crises that could pop up between now and Election Day involving Israel, the Middle East, Iran -- or other parts of the world where trouble is brewing. And they will likely shape the piece of clay that creates the sculpture that we call “election results.”

The Washington Post reports:

"The House last night voted to boost the minimum wage for the first time in nearly a decade while also permanently slashing the estate tax, a coupling that GOP leaders calculated might garner enough Senate support to become law."

The problem however:

"But the maneuvering by House and Senate GOP leaders to package the measures over the objection of some Senate chairmen caused severely bruised feelings. Lawmakers from both parties said last night that the legislation could easily collapse in the Senate, underscoring Democratic contentions that Congress has become dysfunctional."

The Democrats aren't exactly happy with the coupling of this measure to raise the minimum wage with the estate tax cut that would, in the words of the WaPo only benefit "the country's richest families".

Representative Jim McGovern (D-MA) even said:

"This is beyond cynical. This is disgraceful."

Harry Reid (D-NV) added:

"Republicans have made perfectly clear who they stand with and who they are willing to fight for: the privileged few."

Republican Representative Zach Wamp (TN) said he knows why the Democrats are mad:

"I know why you're mad. You've seen us really outfox you"

From a Republican point of view this could actually be a smart move. They never made a secret out of their wish to abolish the estate tax as much as possible. On the other hand, one could argue that the estate tax measure alone (estates worth $5 million -- or $10 million for a married couple -- would be exempted from taxation) would have a difficult time being accepted and it would just about completely confirm what Democrats are saying for years and years (and repeat it this time): that Republicans are only interested in serving rich Americans.

This way, however, the bill might stand a better chance of passing and it would, to a degree, give the Republicans a chance to defend themselves against accusations like that.

Joe Gandelman wrote a magnificent post about it at The Moderate Voice.

He writes:

"No one can accuse the GOP of not staying "on message." And the message they are sending to many Americans — including those who are NOT Democrats — is that they won't do something for working Americans unless they can hold a gun to legislators' heads making them pass something that will give a tax break to wealthy supporters and/or contributors. [...] It truly sounds as if the GOP is now hopelessly inflicted with a political hubris and could be fatal come November. How many workers who are cynical about whether the GOP really cares about them will want to vote for a GOPer who voted for an increase in the minimum wage that was shoved through under threat of defeat unless an inheritance tax break was grafted onto it?"

To a degree, I agree with Joe's view (and that of certain Democrats), namely that it is extremely cynical that the only way with Republicans ruling every branch of the Federal government to increase the minimum wage is to couple it to something that will only make the rich richer. On the other hand one could also ask whether it is truly that important. Isn't it about results? If the goal of many moderates and the Democratic party is to raise the minimum wage, does it really matter that it must be coupled to measure described above? In the end, one could say, isn't it strictly about results? Raising the minimum wage is an important issue to many Democrats. They could try to make it look like a victory for them if they play their cards right. More, does the person who is dependent on the minimum wage for years already, working 50 hours per week, just to be able to pay for his or her home and to take care of his or her family, does such a person really care that his raise is coupled to a something that only benefits the rich? Or will people like that simply be satisfied because - at long last - their situation will be improved?

I must admit that I am inclined to think that, in the end, this might prove to be a 'win-win' situation: both the people who currently work for the federal minimum wage and the ultra-rich will benefit from it. I doubt whether any of those groups really cares about the benefits for the others, as long as they themselves benefit from it as well.

On the other hand, maybe I'm just a cynic.

I suppose it's human nature to want to belong, to identify with a group of like-minded individuals, but I fear we will never reach a national consensus as long we insist on defining our political activism in ideological terms. While the existence of extremists on either end of the political spectrum cannot be denied, the majority of the electorate cannot be easily or usefully classified. Though most of us tend to self identify as being of a particular political bent, if we assess our values and priorities dispassionately, we find we don't belong in any one category.

Labels divide us into camps, bickering with each other, at a time when we need to form a united front to battle the true threat to our system of government -- professional politicians who work only for the special interests that fund their campaigns. Labels encourage us to argue over short term disagreements instead of working for the long term common good. Labels close the door to debate rather than build bridges to compromise.

It's time for us to stop worrying about who's in "our" tent and start approaching solutions under the umbrella of our common need as fellow Americans. Which is ending our current rule under the whims of secret executive fiat by insisting our government operate in transparency and is held accountable to the people, thus restoring our age old system of checks and balances to its former vital function in our governance. Without that, nothing else we do will matter.

Libby Spencer is a political blogger for The Detroit News who also publishes The Impolitic, a political blog with a pragmatic view and Last One Speaks, a blog devoted to drug policy reform and tales of her misadventures.

Sometimes I say to my kids, when they're complaining, "It must be so hard to be you, dear." Nasty, I know. But I promise, I say it with the best motherly “I love you now stop complaining” smile you can imagine. And that's usually followed by making hot cocoa from scratch and throwing some marshmallows into the cup.

But lately, I've been thinking about how hard it can be to be a Jew. And I'm wondering, do Catholics or Protestants, Episcopalians, Methodists, Baptists, Unitarians, Congregationalists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Agnostics, Atheists, Gnostics, Buddhists, Muslims - does anyone who is a member of one of these categories ever feel, It's so hard to be (fill in the blank of the denomination or nationality)?

I love my religion and I love my country, but I don't believe everything that other Jews or other Americans believe. Nor do I believe everything that non-Jews or non-Americans think Jews believe. For example, just because I'm a Jew, I don't think that everything Israel does is a-okay. Likewise, I don’t think everything America does is okay.

Isn't that probably true of people who belong to other religions and reside in other countries?

For example, I love Israel. But I don't support everything that's gone on there and I am as disturbed if not more so than many others about the deep penetration of the Israeli military into Lebanon. I supported disengagement, but I’ve never supported the building of the "security fence."

Couldn't similar dissonance be found between Catholics and decisions made by the Pope? Or Protestants and other Christians? On Thursday, 7/19/06, I read that the Ohio branch of the Christian Coalition is peeling off and becoming an independent entity because its board “…felt that…[it] would rather function as an independent organization than as an organization shrouded with perceptions contrary to its Christian commitments.” Certainly, that statement is evidence of a difference of opinion within a group that is often portrayed monolithically.

Why don’t we let people know that it’s okay - maybe even natural - to feel dissonance, to feel that I’m American but I don’t like what America is doing? Or that I’m a Democrat but I don’t like what some Democrats have done? Or that I’m a Republican and I don‘t like this administration? Instead, some people want to label that dissonance as treason or disloyalty or a lack of patriotism.

It is this quickness to call someone a traitor or disloyal that causes me to worry and fear. Why? Because this quickness to declare anyone who deviates from a supposed message disloyal has made polarization easier to accomplish than ever. It’s the crux of the “if you’re not for us, you’re against us” mentality. And the end of that mentality - intended or otherwise - is to polarize.

This summer, the summer after my sophomore year of college, I am traveling from Quito, Ecuador, to Buenos Aires, Argentina. Last month, I was in Peru for its presidential elections. The candidates were the radical Ollanta vs. the blah ex-president Alan García. Everyone in Peru is required to vote, so maybe I shouldn't have been surprised at the enormous amounts of propaganda. It was everywhere - posted in storefronts, spray-painted on walls, carved into hillsides, painted on boulders along the highway, blaring out of loud speakers on top of cars.

When I asked Peruvians who was going to win, their answers were just as effusive as the propaganda. For an entire forty-minute taxi ride, sitting five across the backseat, straddling a soldiers´ legs, and smashed against the window, I listened to why Alan García should win. Playing soccer with thirteen year olds on a concrete field, we took a break so the players could tell me why Ollanta was going to blow Alan García out of the water. Once, in Nazca, I asked a tiny ten year old who she thought should be president. She answered, ¨Alan Garcia¨ and recited his assets. A woman selling Zippo lighters and Che memorabilia on the corner interrupted Tiny Ten, dismissed her, then made me squat next to her for twenty-five minutes while she recounted Ollanta´s platform.

Although every Peruvian I talked to was familiar with Ollanta's and Alan Garcia's platforms, I never heard an original answer to the question: "Why do you want Ollanta/Alan García to win?" It was always: Ollanta is going to change the lives of the poor, make radical changes, and nationalize oil and gas OR Alan García has experience and is allied with neither Hugo Chávez nor Evo Morales. Basically, their answers were recitations of the propaganda that each candidate printed, carved, or spoke.

Honestly, my political activism has not been much different than that of the Peruvians'. Sure, in the 2024 election (my first), I knew who was running. And, sure, I knew their general platforms, especially the parts related to wedge issues. With this basic information (the information that the parites put out), I thought I had great political insight. To impart this wisdom on my fellow college students, I would seek out debates. I swear that I had the same debate about twenty times. It was always some variation of extreme liberalism vs. the religious right, and the topic of debate rotated between abortion, gun control, gay marriage, and whether or not the War on Terrorism is moral. All of the facts I used were those that the Democrats put out about the Republicans or those that the extreme liberals on campus had put out about the extreme conservatives or vice versa in one of the hundreds of vigils, awareness marches, and drum circles that you can find on campus. Basically, I, armed with my LIBERALISM cheatsheet, was a broken record for the Limousine Liberals, which is what my mom calls me when I rattle on about human rights at the dinner table while subtlety circumventing questions about taxes, deficits, US relationships with Asia, etc.

Since becoming involved with Unity08, I have reassessed the insightfulness of my political views. I realized that there was no insight at all, just recitations. Eliminating party doctrines and politically-charged wedge issues, I've started thinking for myself and becoming more informed. Now, I am reading more articles about the budget deficit, theories on the immigrant labor economy, natural resources in Africa, and China.

Yes, Unity 08 will do me some good.

It will make me think about crucial issues independently, hobbling without the crutch of party-dictated viewpoints. This political re-education needs to be done, especially on college campuses where vigils, prayer circles, and radical demonstrations that are just as redundant as Peruvian propaganda dominate the political discourse.

One thing that the Peruvians do have figured out is the excitement in the right to vote. On election day in Arequipa, there was a parade of Ollanta supporters, dancing, waving the rainbow flag that represents indigenous culture in Peru, and screaming wild chants like Arequipa Revolución and Prensa Basura. This continued well after everyone found out that Alan García had won. I wish that we got that excited on campus on election day. Instead, election day 2024 was somber with complaints about voting inefficiencies and dramatic sobs when Bush won. Hopefully, in 2024, having thought for myself, I will be out on the academic quad shimmying and doing cartwheels, because I will have known exactly what I was doing.

Anna Lassiter will be a junior at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill this fall.

What better place or time to ask Americans what they think of politics today than Washington, DC on the 4th of July? Watch the video to see what people had to say to our Unity08 roving reporters. Then, let us know what you have to say by commenting in the blog, posting your opinion in the Shoutbox or sending us your own video or audio clip. Or, better yet, post it to YouTube and we'll link to it.

A lot of other bloggers here have expounded on what it means to be a moderate, and on the evils of partisanship, and what's wrong with the current way of doing things.

Me, I want to talk about the practicalities.

I strongly believe in the ideal behind Unity08. If we can make moderates a force of their own -- just as conservatives and liberals have become forces within, but separate from, the two major parties -- we can achieve several interrelated objectives. Among them:

1. Forcing elected officials to pay attention to moderates, rather than their partisan bases.
2. Giving moderate Republicans and Democrats a base of support independent of their party. That will make them less beholden to their party, which should lead to fewer party-line votes and more thoughtful and independent political debate.
3. Offering a lever for those moderates to recapture their parties and reestablish the long tradition of "meet in the middle" that the last 15 years of partisanship have all but erased.
4. Reasserting pragmatism over ideology, leading to legislation that thoughtfully addresses complex problems, instead of pursuing oversimplified or actively harmful agendas in order to conform to some predetermined principle.

The question, though, is how to achieve this in a winner-take-all electoral system dominated by two major parties, who have gerrymandered most districts to make them "safe" for one party or the other. Where is our leverage?

First we need to demonstrate the political clout of moderates. Sites such as this are a start, providing much-needed organization. But what will really force the parties to pay attention is fundraising. If supporting moderate viewpoints generates huge sums of cash, the parties will become more moderate. Rhetoric and ideology have power, but money is king.

So contribute to moderate candidates, wherever they may be. Support (or create) moderate PACs. Volunteer for campaigns. When party fundraisers call, tell them that you have already contributed to the moderates in the party and if they want a party-level donation they need to start addressing your concerns on a party level as well.
Even more importantly, convince others to do the same.

If moderates indeed represent a large and decisive slice of the electorate, the parties will get the message loud and clear. Even if it doesn't lead directly to election victories, it will strengthen the hand of moderates in both parties.

All the money in the world, though, will still have trouble overcoming gerrymandering. In the last midterm election in 2024, 96 percent of incumbents won re-election -- down from 98 percent in 1998. How
will moderates make inroads when the whole system is
designed to insulate incumbents from the electorate?

This one requires a multi-pronged approach, with both short- and long-term strategies.

In the short term, the key is to note that seats are gerrymandered to make them safe for parties, not particular ideologies. If you don't care about the party label, then the answer is simple: work to help moderates win their party's nomination in a particular district. The more we can make a race be a choice between two moderates, the more we can make the gerrymandered system work for us by electing -- and protecting -- moderates.

At a minimum that means voting in primaries, and doing your homework on the candidates. But that's not really enough, since at that point you're just picking from a pre-selected group of candidates. What it really takes is getting involved in the party of your choice, so that moderate candidates stand a better chance of surviving the internal party debates that precede the public primaries. Anything that weakens the stranglehold that partisans have on party organizations will help move the parties toward the center.

In the long term, moderates should actively support two initiatives intended to weaken the two-party duopoly: some form of instant-runoff voting, and some sort of district-drawing
method that would force districts to be constructed according to objective criteria, with as little political involvement as possible.

That's the strategy in a nutshell: reward parties and candidates for moderate stances, work to build moderate influence within parties, all while establishing electoral conditions that will enable
moderates to get elected without being unduly beholden to their party bosses. It won't be easy, and it won't happen overnight. But that's what politics is: hard work. Let's get to it.

About the author

Sean Aqui is the mind behind Midtopia, a centrist blog launched in March. He is also a frequent contributor to Donklephant. Sean is a veteran -- a former tank lieutenant -- who now works as a graphic designer and writer. He lives with his wife and two children in a suburb of Minneapolis.

This is a convert talking.

I was once a big booster of that disputed decade. I even wrote a whole book in its mildly qualified praise. Sure, it spiraled out of control, its embarrassing excesses were to be repudiated, but its heart, I thought, was all good. It was visionary. It was transforming. It was ecstatic. It was spiritual. It was -- Youth.

It was our #*@*&! youth, all right? That’s all it was. Now get over it.

What brought the Sixties to mind was thinking about the extreme polarization that’s rent our country, who started it and who’s going to start stopping it, if anyone can. Look now, and you see a kind of symmetry -- both sides behaving badly, locked in an escalating verbal shoving match from which there may be no return. “Ann Coulter?” “Ward Churchill!” “Well, Rush Limbaugh you!” “Michael Moore your mother!” Deep beneath that, like a tectonic fault causing surface tremors, is said to be an unbridgeable philosophical divide: two starkly opposed views of human nature, pitting Rousseauian Enlightenment against High Church, Luciferian freedom against chastened obedience. Whichever side you’re on, the other looks like the Devil.

Trace the conflict back before one America almost tore into two, though—back to the early Sixties and the Civil Rights movement’s dignified appeal to the conscience of the whole nation -- and I think you can identify who started it.

We did.

I’m talking about my “we” of origin – the Left, though I’ve left it for the center. And if I’m right (and I’m bracing for attack from legions who think I’m wrong), the Left has more of an obligation, but even less of an inclination, to be the first to reach across the divide for the country’s sake.

Granted, the Left was traumatized by the string of assassinations that broke the back of the Sixties. With Medgar Evers, the Kennedys, King, and an evolving Malcolm X – who’d just given up racism for Ramadan – the Left lost the last leaders capable of potently bridging the generations, the races, the classes, clean-cut idealism and just-corrupt-enough pragmatism. Just in case you think I’m a right-wing apologist, if I were a conspiracy theorist and I asked,”Cui bono? Who benefited?” from the assassinations, I’d have to say, “The Republican Right.” Because after 1965, a large portion of the Left dropped out of civilization and has never come back. And that has served the Right very well indeed.

Aren’t you sick of street demonstrations – be they antiwar, pro-choice, or gay-pride -- with their by-now-formulaic mix of freakery, scruffiness, sexual and sartorial acting-out, and menacing anarchism? This is still a significant and symptomatic form of left-wing political expression. It’s a politics of infantile rage, demand, and provocation -- politics by tantrum: “Whaddaya want?” “X!” “Whennayawannit?” “NOW!” Its only potency is negative – all it accomplishes is to disgust and alarm ordinary citizens -- and the elected Democrats who try to play politics by civilized rules are dragged down and rendered impotent by their indulgence of and tacit alliance with it. Look at the pictures of this pro-choice counterdemonstration, not coincidentally in Nancy Pelosi’s district. I only wish the signs saying “Abort More Christians” and “Stop Breeding” had been painted by pro-life propagandist-provocateurs. (The organizers of April’s pro-immigration rallies at least were smart enough to have the marchers wave American flags and chant nothing more inflammatory than “USA all the way!” However alarming nativists may have found the huge numbers of Latinos in the streets, their demeanor was disarming, and it impressed the undecided.)

You’ll say I’m only talking about style, but style is as tightly bound to substance as means are to ends. The substance conveyed by street-demo style is, “We have no respect for you, now we demand you respect us,” and that ‘tude predated and provoked right-wing talk radio. There’s a place and even a need for Dionysian excess (therefore the wise old safety-valve traditions of Carnival and comedy clubs), but that place is not in the forum where vital public business is debated and transacted. To flaunt it there isn’t “freedom of expression,” it’s secession from the social compact, and either to act that way or to dismiss it with an indulgent chuckle is an inexcusable frivolity from those who claim to really care about their causes. (Do I think the guys in g-strings in gay pride parades hurt the cause of gay marriage? Yeah. At Mardi Gras, on the other hand, everyone can get away with it.) If you want people to listen to you and give your concerns serious consideration, you have to speak a courteous common language – and you have to listen to them.

Here’s what post-traditional AmbivaBlog and conservative Catholic Ales Rarus learned from our experiment in civilly debating gay marriage. What happens when sincere opponents fight with respect is that after the first bristling salvos to establish nonnegotiable boundaries, they let down their guard and concede a few points to each other – points that seem peripheral to the issue in dispute, but in the long view may actually be more essential. We had religious conservatives allowing that civil unions might be tolerable, and progressives pondering the notion that sex might actually be sacred – both far better contributions to a country where sharp differences must share common ground than the sweeping constitutional bans and “Abort More Christians” signs we’re getting now.

Neither Left nor Right is doing much of this, but I see the Right doing just a touch more – listening to the other side and saying, “Point taken.” There is now a thriving evangelical environmental movement and a renewed (though never absent) focus on the poor and the AIDS-stricken – beams in the Christian Right’s eye originally pointed out by progressives. They listened. By contrast, Dems who question the harmlessness of sitcom sex, abortion, or single parenthood are few and far between, and they are slammed as panderers or Republican wannabes. Two examples of progressives who appear to have heard the other side and thoughtfully incorporated some contrapuntal wisdom into their worldview are Senator Barack Obama’s “Call to Renewal” keynote address and William Saletan’s writings on abortion. We need more. It’s time for those who pioneered the politics of provocation 30 years ago to finally let the Sixties be over.

This was the week of “high concept” audio and visual clips from the G8 conference. And what memorable imagery...

First, there was President George Bush’s blunt, no PC use of a four letter word beginning with “s” in referring to Hezbollah’s provocative Middle East actions (The word wasn’t “sore.”) in a moment when he didn’t know his mike was on.

Next, there was that visual of Bush walking behind a clearly surprised and not precisely delighted German Chancellor Angela Merkel to give her a neck rub. (He would have gotten lots more publicity if he had done it to British Prime Minister Tony Blair).

In a way these seem to be metaphors for many in America’s political center.

You meet more and more centrists and moderates who are bluntly saying (and some will use the “s” word) about how fed up they are with polarization and the way they perceive both parties’ partisan bases are ignoring or “dissing” them.

And you find more and more centrists groping for solutions -- and new options.

Did you ever walk onto a school playground and hear a little kid say “Nanee nanee noo noo!” as he teases a playmate? You’ve heard it many times before and even thought it may be cute and attention getting, but it’s quite old.

And that’s the story of American politics as it moves into the 2024 midterms and the 2024 presidential. We wouldn’t dare use the phrase “stuck on stupid” to describe what's going on.

Let's just say it seems stuck on stupidity.

POLARIZATION REMAINS KING: Last week former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich had some advice for GOPers and the White House. Start talking up events in the Middle East as being part of World War III. Have President Bush then call Congress into session in September and bring it all together using label World War III. Newt then suggested this could work against Democrats in the upcoming mid-term elections -- in other words, are you for us in this fight in World War III (which would embrace everything the administration has done on Iraq, 911, the Middle East) or not? In essence, he was suggesting national unity over the Middle East be flushed down the toilet. But when he went on Meet the Press he urged the World War III terminology, yet omitted the idea that this be used against Democrats to further divide our polity. In talking to Tim Russert, Newt assumed the role of thinker versus polarizing political hack. So which one is he?

EVEN SYMBOLS OF MOMENTS OF NATIONAL UNITY ARE EXPLOITED: In Ohio, Sen. Mike DeWine is using 911 footage to suggest his Democratic opponent is soft on terrorism. It turns out DeWine is soft on accuracy: it turns out the footage he was using was doctored. Mr. DeWine and others who want to turn 911 images of falling towers (which mean people being burned into cinders inside the buildings) into suggestions that their opponents are soft on terrorism and don’t care about American lives seem to forget that 911 was a supremely NONPARTISAN moment in national history -- where all Americans came together and on the key decisions in changing the way the government operated BOTH PARTIES voted for the final measures. He seemingly forgets that who might have voted against a piece of legislation did so for reasons other than not caring about Americans. He also forgets: 911 was the result of a failure of MANY administrations of BOTH parties and intra and inter intelligence agency bickering that failed to connect the dots. No one party deserves the blame for 911 or is totally responsible for the national unity that came right after it.

DOWNSIZING THE SIZE OF YOUR PARTY TENT: Many partisans in both the Republican and Democratic parties seem determined to weed out people who do not fully agree with their own ideological agenda. They always offer logical explanations and rationalizations for doing it but the bottom line is the same. Lieberman has acted like a Republican and blasts his own party. Bush kissed him…Lincoln Chafee is a RINO. You can’t count on him to back the Republican party. (Come to think of it, Harry Reid has not kissed HIM so perhaps Chaffee is luckier than Lieberman.) When these folks are weeded out or even if they survive with grave political wounds, it will tell some independent or non-lockstep voters: You’re not welcome in THIS party unless you agree with everything we believe so find another home. (We predict they WILL).

How did we get in this state? You can make the case that since the early 20th century America has gone through upheavals in the concept of “broadcasting” versus “narrow casting” that impacted entertainment and politics. Early live vaudeville shows had to appeal to a wide audience. Movies and radio came in and killed vaudeville but the concept was still to get a broad audience. In politics, politicians sought broad-based coalitions that would help them win and govern.

By the early to mid 60s and the growth of the Vietnam War, generation/culture gap and divisions became more rampant. In entertainment terms, this partly led to the demise of CBS’s Ed Sullivan Show because a “big tent” entertainment variety show was becoming passé. Cable fed the trend of “narrow casting where you now have 100 stations to choose from (most of them showing crap). The Rush Limbaugization of America began by the 80s where politics became like pro-wrestling -- entertainment…hours of demonizing and ridiculing politicos and defending and praising one side. Rush became the model for much of progressive talk.

Enter Karl Rove and the “mobilization election” where you aim to get YOUR side out and don’t worry about the center. Add to that a (sometimes angry) soul searching among some Democrats that their party has blown it by trying to appeal to Republicans and that the way to win is to by accentuate differences between parties to offer a clearer choice.

In a way, this comes full circle: today’s left-wing Democrats aren’t just like the 1960s McGovernites, but like the early 60’s Goldwaterites whose credo was “A Choice Not An Echo.”

Increasingly, moderates and centrists are being asked to choose sides or someone will define them as being on one side whether they like it or not. In the Blogtopia some blogs in the middle are being labeled as right or left. Usually a writer’s motives are impugned. Blogs on both sides have allowed almost slanderous things to be said about other bloggers in comments sections. Meanwhile, blogs in the center are used to being called secretly Democrat, secretly Republican and being delinked occasionally by the right or the left who insist they know THE TRUTH about what they REALLY believe.

It’s trying to shove people in the center into one of the ideological slots on the right or left. The goal in American politics these days seems less to create broad-based coalitions and win people over than to beat them down. Old fashioned political horse trading has in many cases been replaced by a yearning for intellectual slavery and total obedience.

This may work to bludgeon some folks in the center. But those on the right and left may find that when it comes time to vote he who has pressured or demonized people in the center may find that his side will lose their votes. The good news: there are STILL thoughtful politicos and operatives in both parties who are trying to keep their tents from shrinking. There ARE many thoughtful liberals, conservatives and centrists who aren’t buying into the politics of demonization and intellectual intimidation. They vigorously defend their views but don’t do so by trying to tear down others.

You could make the case that folks attacking the center for not supporting them 100 percent must be moles for their opposing parties. But, more accurately, they sometimes seem moles for the politics of polarization and intellectual intolerance.

Many Americans in the center look at all of this and use the “s” word. And many grope for answers.

Although perhaps not as joyously as Mr. Bush.

Jack Abramoff’s friend Ralph Reed went down to defeat yesterday in Georgia. Some would say ‘the holier they are, the harder they fall.’ But it also seems timely to re-open our discussion of term limits and other Washington reform proposals.

In the early days local citizens were honored to be sent to Washington to represent their area, stayed for six month sessions and returned home in time to complete the harvest.

Now many new Members of Congress come as idealists ready to tame the Washington beast, but within three terms maximum they seem to have been captured by the beast – and the Washington culture of lobbyists, fundraising, perks and pork.

The lobbyists put up the money that keep incumbents invulnerable to everyone but mega-millionaire challengers. The state legislators draw the district lines that keep incumbents invulnerable to all but a challenge in their own party primary – so they play to their base and polarize things further.

Term limits would mandate turnover. But some worry that it would mean that the only institutional memory in town would belong to the lobbyists. And others worry that unemployed Members of Congress are just lobbyists waiting to be hired.

So do term limits need to be accompanied with other reforms of the way Washington operates. Should all former Members of Congress be banned forever from ever being a lobbyist? Should all lobbyists be banned from giving or raising campaign funds for Members?

Or should Howard Baker’s rule apply: If you can’t vote for the candidate, you can’t give to the candidate. What say you? Join the Shoutbox discussion on term limits that is already in progress or start your own.