Elections are on the distant horizon. Its paralysis time, not clobberin' time.

Opinion here is that two-party politics and politicians failed and there are a few key reasons that can explain most the failure. Political party and incumbent self-interest is one of them. The situation is common, garden variety service to political self-interest pushing aside service to the public interest. This complaint and variants thereof have been aired here before. The topic is old but still relevant.

 U.S. supplies to Pakistanis - 2010

Are we paralyzed yet?

One can easily argue that political self-interest sometimes manifests itself in the form of political paralysis associated with political elections. Is it fair or reasonable to believe that in November of 2011, one year from a presidential election, American politics at the national level is already poisoned and paralyzed by partisan politics? In view of our serious, complex problems, is it sane to even suggest that American politics is largely diverted to serving partisan politics for at least one year out of every four, i.e., about 25% of the time, in presidential election years and for several months more for off-year elections, maybe about 35-40% of the time in total? Is that just a nutty opinion unique to Calmoderate? Is Calmoderate wrong? Cal doesn't think so for either question.


Arguing that American politics is in full blown political paralysis in anticipation of an election one year from now is completely nuts. Or is it? What does reasonable, well-informed opinion from outside the U.S. have to say? The November 5-11, 2011 (page 15) issue of The Economist opines on the issue (online article here):

"The coming presidential election badly needs a shot of centrist pragmatism. . . . . . . . Already American politics has succumbed to election paralysis, with neither party interested in bipartisan solutions."

Afghanistan 2010

In an interview (Nov. 14, 2011), presidential candidate John Huntsman opined that a president typically has only the first two years or so in office to get anything done. After that, election cycle paralysis sets in, e.g., as lame duck syndrome, etc. If that is true, and it seems to be, is electing a president for two of every four good or not? I suppose that for most people it is good if you don't like the president and bad if you do. That's a heck of a way to run a representative democracy. Probably a bad way, unless dysfunction is a good thing.

Its not just Cal who thinks that the two political parties and their politicians put their agendas first and foremost. When you think about whose side they are on, it is hard to see how the situation could get much clearer. About the only thing that could make political priorities more clear would be if they just came out and admitted it.