Severance

The problem with "inside the Beltway" punditry is that it tends to be divorced from the actual reasons why the public at large does things. I was listening to a recent episode of the Slate Politics podcast, and host David Plotz was attempting to make the point that Graham Platner's character flaws were different, and lesser, than President Trump's, as an answer to a an expected Republican callout of hypocrisy.

What serious Democrat cares if Republicans think they're a hypocrite, given the number of Republicans who already regard them as Enemies of the State? Democrats who are going to vote for Graham Platner will do so not because they've decided he's morally upstanding, but because control of the United States Senate is important, and a Senator Platner makes that more likely than Senator Susan Collins remaining in office does. Disliking the new rules of the game doesn't mean that people don't have to play. And the new rules of the game dictate that controlling the various levers of government is the only thing that matters.

As long as Democratic and Republican voters continue to organize themselves into two mutually hostile camps where "the other side losing" is considered equal to "winning," this is going to be the new normal, because the activist classes on both sides see themselves as too broke to be able to care about right and wrong.

Ironically, it's because they can't afford not to.

"Inside the Beltway" commentary that expects people to feel secure enough to take the high road simply comes across as disconnected from the way that people are actually engaging with politics. And it's difficult to offer workable solutions to a problem when one is committed to an incorrect diagnosis.