I’m all ready to put up something for your friday reading enjoyment, but (accidentally) listening to NPR this morning for a little too long had me pulling an Inspector Dreyfuss, and not in a good way.
Mara Liasson, you know you know me, national political correspondent or whatever, talking about the post-election shake-out, practically encapsulates the conventional wisdom flowing from every quarter that also just happens to be a ridiculous way of thinking about politics. It’s pulling for atrophy, as one friend is want to say. I’m not linking to it, but it goes something like this:
The final score of Tuesday’s election gives Republican’s evidence of a resurgence.
People want divided government, so it can do nothing.
So they vote for Republicans, even though they don’t like them (~20% consistently self-identify as republicans).
Republican can win, if they obscure their stances on social issues.
NY-23 was an example of Republicans dividing their support, and so handing a victory to the Democrat.
CA-10… oh, Mara didn’t mention CA-10.
Moderate democrats better hedge their bets on supporting the Obama agenda… or else voters will punish them for looking like they support something and running afoul of the way national political correspondents (aka The Village) and others have grown accustomed to thinking about what the legislative branch should [not] be doing.
So, NPR donors listeners good liberals… Is this the way the news about this or any election should be delivered?