..out of the dark

So - just how effective is this sort of campaigning? True, in the US some 20% ever managed to get through college, and the sense of community spirit in some areas are about as permanent as tumbling weed. And let's not forget the Megachurch- communities tied to faith- based politics and the holy dollar bill. But nevertheless - does this type of ridiculous hit- pieces work?

To answer that, let's take a short look at how much energy has been used on promoting the idea that the Clintons are a small, if exceptionally influential, mafia- family that uses the long arm of the law, executive power, or whatever is available to: 1. further their own business, 2. Supply Bill Clinton with a fresh supply of virgins every month, and 3. Murder political opponents and make it look like an accident.

Let's start with the Arkansas- affair. In the beginning, there were questions asked about tax- evasion and fraud started some time long ago by the Clintons when they still lived in Arkansas, and were politically active there. In reality, what had happened was not unlike democratic leader H. Reid's alleged tax fraud - i.e., they had sold property after the value had increased, and earned money off the trade. That then created two different reported numbers on the value of the property, and these numbers were then fed to journalists who do not know how to spot a fact if it would be close to skewering their eyeball.

This, through the diligent prosecution by special counsel Kenneth Starr, eventually led to other inquiries. This time regarding Bill Clinton's apparently predatory sex- urges. Which of course, since it was much more interesting than actual political issues where Clinton royally screwed the country over, naturally led to articles of impeachment being filed in the House, and successfully voted into the Senate. Where the case was dismissed altogether, since - when less insane minds cooled down below the boiling point and thought about it for a while - "Conduct in the White House", probably wasn't actually meant to be used to impeach a president for what was considered to be "immoral" conduct, if it was not also 1. criminal, and 2. unconstitutional in the context of the president's role. And so, while still immoral, Clinton sat the entire term, and still managed to get the republican majority and the democratic minority to follow him on many substantial issues. For instance on healthcare and insurance company collusion, and small wars in foreign countries for "humanitarian" reasons.

Now - to understand why these things matter at all, we need to examine some pretty stupid stuff. Since then there have been other issues highlighted with very stable frequency in many right- wing blogs and newsmedia. And I'll pick out the most obvious. Mr. Ted Kennedy's unfortunate accident with a girl who drowned in Chappaquiddick (Ted Kennedy is of course the last remnant in the Senate of the unfortunate Kennedy- family). Then there's Clinton's alleged "fixing" of a sex- predator who raped one of his cousins (which even went so far as that the sex- offender was pardoned, to reverse the Clinton abuse of power and so on - only to rape another girl). And there's the ever increasing amount of people who have somehow been mysteriously accosted by Bill Clinton, and then pressured to keep quiet about it, even to the point of murdering their husbands to make it... turn up in the papers, or something.

Anyway. Awake readers will have noticed that there's a thread going through all these stories. It's the following: a politically hard- hitting figure uses his(or her) power for personal interests, screws up royally, and then gets away with it because of their contacts, their friends, and their unscrupulous associates.

But this is even more important as a running narrative in the american psyche when you consider that belief in personal dignity and integrity is only rivalled in importance by being a strong and decisive leader. Meaning that while the methods and practices may not be new, the fact that they are used for such petty and unambitious goals is something that is a reinforcing background.

So these issues are not merely absurd smears. They describe the two polar opposites of what an american leader should be. Also, we should not forget that these strong leaders do have immense power, and that there undoubtedly are - what with sheriffs and judges standing to election - political considerations involved when senior political figures are involved in criminal matters and investigations. And of course that political outrage will frequently dip into law- enforcement at every level.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why noone is laughing until they cry when news- stories like these hit the wire. Because they touch something traditionally very important with the american electorate - the emotional appeal of a strong and righteous leadership. While transferring the lack of community spirit over and on to an ideal of how one hopes the country should be run.

Nevertheless, the question now is - is that base, of the 40% of the population that actually votes, and that has decided the elections since before Reagan, on the way out? Is that view of the strong and trustworthy leadership falling apart? If so, what is it being replaced with? And will that change the process and the election campaigns? Or, will people just not go out to vote? Will a different part of the electorate go out to vote?

Usually, we would only find out things like this after years and years - but the extraordinary circumstances of the last couple of years have given us some clues. For instance: before 2000, the democrats were competing with the republicans for trying to craft a political organisation that would reward it's proponents, and punish it's opponents - facts and actual issues be damned.

Since then, we have seen more and more that democrats are fighting their own party, they're breaking with their party in public, and also publically challenging what the democratic party is. It's of course entirely new, so I'm reaching very far to find good examples of this. But nevertheless, there is room now for that sort of public questioning of the policies. True, people are still in collusion with the terrorists if they actually are in power and manage to question the beltway wisdom. But the fact that several presidential candidates (Obama, Edwards, Dodd) are pushing hard against issues that their party and their leadership has conceded long ago, is a signal that they believe they will be rewarded politically by opposing the orthodoxies, instead of following them and the party machinery.

I will of course not attest to their moral positions, or their principled stances on the actual issues, let's be clear on that - but I can point out that they believe it is less risky to go out hard against these orthodoxies than it is to approve of them. Or even that they perceive it is necessary to go against these decisions to survive politically. And that is new, when we consider the fact that we are talking about issues like Habeas Corpus, Torture, indefinite detention and illegal wars. And that means very obviously that the candidate who eventually will become the front- runner has to adopt - or defeat - these positions to be able to win these votes.

Said differently - by these issues being so significant in laying out the differences between the candidates, we will see some major rhetorical bluster on these issues, of course, but also a need to shape narratives to adopt positions on one side or the other. That is, because the issues are discussed within the party. Instead of, as usual, that these issues are avoided in the ever perfected technique of appealing to the least common denominator vote.

So - believe it or not: American politics might indeed become interesting again.

(Hell, if this keeps up, something that's not actually the worst possible solution might be tried first as a rule. Oh, well, one can dream.)