Political strategists of all stripes have been pulling their hair out over the last year about the seeming fragmentation of the US into five voting blocs – progressives, Democratic Party faithful, centrists, GOP faithful, and the so-called Tea Party. The reason this is so problematic for US politics is because the United States has a voting system known as First Past the Post, used exclusively in only a smattering of countries with functional governments. Comparativists call the different forms of group identification in the US and in other states where parties are purely ideological “cross-cutting cleavages” – essentially the idea is that party identification will be fluid because parties aren’t allowed to purposefully represent one ethnicity or religious group. So, a committed Roman Catholic might believe strongly in the Puritan value set of it being everyone’s responsibility to care for the weaker brother – Jesus referenced this in the Beatitudes – and thereby identify best with the Democrats. Or, that same Roman Catholic might decide that protecting the rights of the unborn is the most important thing this election cycle, and so will vote with the Republicans.

The beauty of this system is that it balances group identification to prevent our political system from becoming overly fragmented. But in 2010, my America looks very different. Disillusioned voters on both sides, upset with a lack of leadership in Washington, are flocking to their respective pundit classes to be told the way of the future. Now, with a balanced and responsible Fourth Estate, this would be workable. But talking heads on the right such as Glenn Beck (the keynote speaker at CPAC 2010) and Sarah Palin are passing themselves off as mainstream, and in efforts to both widen the tent and make more cash, have refused to exclude even the dangerously crazy from their faithful following.  It is irresponsible to pretend that attacks from “birthers” pretending that there is something to contest about the first African-American president’s birth certificate are anything less than racist. However, it is equally irresponsible to write these conspiracy theorists off as some kind of fringe movement.  Although their ideas are certainly not typically associated with the mainstream, they seem to have found the perfect blend of ambiguity and populism to bring as many people in as possible, whether out of terror at the health care bill (“ObamaCare”) or out of fear for Obama’s tax hikes (while actually, the opposite is true).

It is fair to assert that these groups will be somewhat marginalized by the realities of the 2010 election. However, it doesn’t necessarily take a huge amount of people to push mainstream candidates out of the way. New York’s 23rd District was nearly hijacked by a Conservative Party candidate after he won support from Beck and Palin. And the dearth of leadership and epidemic of opportunism in the GOP right now is so desperate, it is not unrealistic to anticipate a new Republican Party after 2010, tied to the coffin of Ronald Reagan and some amorphous agenda focused on tax cuts and smaller government – as long as we keep the government’s hands off my Medicare.

Well, everyone worried about Ted Kennedy’s death and what it would mean to any meaningful change to the health care system in the United States.  Apart from all the unwarranted hysteria about the Kennedy curse (he was old and he died…), I thought the press handled it pretty well, including The Kosmopolitan Online, which wrote a couple of nice editorials on Ted’s contributions to the Senate and how he was a one-man filibuster and so on and so forth.  I have to admit I never liked the guy, but staunchness and constancy aren’t very well spoken for in our representation, apart from on the extremely local level.  The paradigmatic Kennedy contributed a lot to health care reform while he was alive; he contributed even more by dying, creating an inamorata around which the Democrats could rally.  Democratic zeal for health care after his death is what got the legislation this far.

But now it’s fucked.

In an impossible victory, Scott Brown (R) defeated Martha Coakley (D) approximately 53 to 47 percent to take the late senator’s seat in Massachusetts.  The usually overwhelmingly democratic Massachusetts shocked the polity by electing to the senate the 41st member of the GOP, which keeps alive the Republican filibuster for the Senate health care bill.  President Obama’s first year in office is shot (unless he’s out of the country), and Democrats can wave goodbye any hopes of an expeditious piece of legislation.

Martha, Martha, Martha

I would understand if Martha Coakley had been in some kind of drug scandal and lost the election; I would understand if she was an ineffective campaigner.  No, I think Martha Coakley is another name for President Barack Obama and His Administration…Most democrats seem to have lost a little faith in their “change is coming” mantra, with frustration permeating throughout the House and Senate at the longevity of this convoluted health care bill.  Granted, the death of the champion probably didn’t help, but someone famous once said that things will one day be judged by the content of their character instead of outward appearances.

Scott Brown’s campaign platform makes the election even more painful for democrats to swallow: he actively opposes the health care legislation in the House and Senate.

It doesn’t help that Obama had a bad year.  What makes things worse is that he knows and admits that the year was bad, calling the Christmas Day attack of the Northwest airliner “a systematic failure” on the part of the administration.  The economy’s positive response to the senatorial election can almost entirely be attributed to increased faith in drug companies which would otherwise have been negatively impacted by the President’s health care package.  That’s sickening.

I think it’s funny that Scott Brown once posed nude for Cosmopolitan – it means we’re breaking down this crusty, white male paradigm of “what a politician should be” (iniquitous, venal, etc.).  I just wish Scott Brown was a (D).  Sigh…

“It’s the price of oil, the war for the spoils, where’s your bucket for the big bailout? Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, we got a lot to drink about…”

Forgive my unlicensed quoting of a Jimmy Buffett song (for an intelligentsia-marketed publication no less), but it seems to me that today is a great day to develop some alcoholism. Now, I don’t mean to mock anyone with a serious problem (get some help?), but a recovering alcoholic got us into this mess. Shouldn’t our law-professor generalissimo be able to realize that maybe voicing withdrawal plans that are as intelligible as a monophonic recording of Bob Dylan singing the Tax Code in hurricane-force winds might not be the best strategy to adopt? That may be a bit harsh, but I should like to think that Il Duce is smart enough to experience a little déjà vu when he hears his withdrawal plan float out past that mole-colored mole on his lip. And I’m not likening Obama-fo-yo-Mama to Mussolini, but all of this plebeian pandering is reminiscent of the 30s in Europe, ain’t it?

It occurs to me (your local card-carrying GOP-er) that the withdrawal plan el Presidente has been handed to read to the public is strikingly similar to dear-old-W’s “wait-and-see” approach that had Hillary (this is actually her plan donchaknow) and Her Hell-kittens in a hullaballoo not too long ago.  Just don’t let anyone named scaevola (Latin, look it up) know that, holy shit, there are similarities between our two indelible parties.

“What if we’re wrong”, I question myself, “what if we just happen to be overreacting to the health-care debate?” That’s possible, but what’s also possible is that I’m still disgusted with the rabidity that Obama-disciples display; don’t let’s criticize the Phrenologist-in-chief, “he’s won a peace prize” (don’t worry, no “piece” puns here); “he’s ‘fixed’ the economy” (my collie is wincing).  Bullshit, he’s just as little as Clinton ever did, except Obama has a Senate in his favor, in HIS FAVOR!

By the by, the economy still isn’t fixed, but it’ll be worsened by spending ourselves deeper into Chinese debt. We can’t fix healthcare with a public option and it’s very foolish for Liberals to compare it to the VA. There won’t be an up-swell in new industry by placing increasingly devious barriers to job-growth. There won’t be any major success in Iraq and Afghanistan until either of those nations decides it wants success and the citizenry actively seeks to extirpate the fascist-fundamentalist coalition which has hijacked the same faith which sponsored Battuta’s journeys to China. I used to be an optimist, you know.

The fact is that the Change-Meister-in-chief has failed to bring his “change.” Don’t get me wrong, everyone in Washington politics needs to be taken out for an afternoon of electroshock, but it starts at the top.  I know it’s a tired line, but the hype generated by our President was obviously better suited for campaigning than leading.  I mean, anyone could get elected with that kind of plebiscitary doling.

Headlines are punchlines folks and there’s not much we can do about it, except pour shots and bitch until someone comes along worth supporting. We’ve got a lot to drink about…