Far Away

Some time back, I'd found an article about a deal to allow mining at a site that the local Native American tribes held sacred. The author made an interesting point.

If Oak Flat were a Christian holy site, or for that matter Jewish or Muslim, no senator who wished to remain in office would dare to sneak a backdoor deal for its destruction into a spending bill — no matter what mining-company profits or jobs might result. But this is Indian religion. Clearly the Arizona congressional delegation isn’t afraid of a couple of million conquered natives.
Lydia Millet. "Selling Off Apache Holy Land"

Part of this is because of those "couple of million conquered natives," only 400,000 or so live in Arizona. The rest live elsewhere, and that takes us to the heart of the matter. The percentage of the other approximately 6,000,000 Arizonans who care isn't large enough for the congressional delegation to be afraid of them, either. And while Ms. Millet may very well be correct that they would value Christianity or Judaism (Islam, I'm not so sure about) over the promise of greater corporate profits (and hopefully, tax revenue from same), more jobs or increased national security (Senator McCain's stated rationale for backing this deal), anyone else's religion? Sure, throw it under the bus.

Part of this is simply the nature of the United States - for a broad swath of the overall public, not their problem directly equates to not a problem. But I also think that a large part of it is due to the Native American population being largely out of sight and out of mind. Even here, in the Puget Sound region, where Native American place names dot the landscape, actual Native Americans seem fairly thin on the ground. I don't think that I've actually met a tribal member in the nearly two decades since I've moved here. And I think that "out of sight, out of mind" status contributes to their lack of political clout.

Aftermath

The remains of a homeless encampment. I was surprised to see just how much trash had accumulated, although it makes sense - it's not like the homeless have regular garbage pickup. It's a strange feeling, wandering around in the aftermath of people's lives.

There May Be Only Two

The Democratic and Republican parties do not hold their virtual duopoly on elected offices in the United States because of a corresponding duopoly of public support - there are many people who choose to support neither the Democrats nor the Republicans, and do not vote for their candidates. Instead, the two principal parties maintain a lock on elections by maintaining a lock on the perception of viability.

Despite what some Republican boosters would tell you, Senator Bernie Sanders is not running for the Democratic Party nomination for President of the United States because his brand of Social Democracy is a natural fit for the traditional Democratic voter. Over the years, Senator Sanders has made a number of unflattering statements about the party:

“You don’t change the system from within the Democratic Party.”

“My own feeling is that the Democratic Party is ideologically bankrupt.”

“We have to ask ourselves, ‘Why should we work within the Democratic Party if we don’t agree with anything the Democratic Party says?’”
Can Bernie Sanders Win the Love of a Party He Scorns?

Instead, he joined the Democrats because he understood that it was the only way to make a serious run for the White House.

Sanders said he thought about running as independent in the first place, but decided not to.

“If we were serious about winning this election, which is always my intention from day one, I thought we could and I hope that we will. I had to do it within the Democratic primary caucus process,” he said.
Bernie Sanders on why he won’t run as an independent

The alternative is to be relegated to the “Third Party” ghetto, where candidates can, and do, build loyal supporter bases, but next to nothing in terms of either media coverage, donations or the sort of broad support needed to be taken seriously.

As long as the public as a whole demands that viable candidates only come from the Democrats and Republicans, this situation is not going to change.

Frustrations

Perhaps the most frustrating thing about talking politics with people is the ease with which they slide into referring to others as stupid, ignorant, short-sighted or some other term designed mainly to justify denying them the right to make their own choices, whether that be for a political candidate or for a particular policy.

The second most frustrating thing about talking politics with people is that they only want to notice that tendency in people with whom they disagree.

Straight Talk

The ingenious subtext of much of [Donald Trump's] messaging is: “Nobody wants to hear this hard truth, but here it is: you’re right!”
Derek Thompson "How Donald Trump Can Beat Hillary Clinton" The Atlantic, 2 March 2016

"94.3 percent of the time Obama never really tells the audiences anything uncomfortable though he boasts that he will 100 percent of the time. What he promises them instead is to tell people they don't like (auto executives and Wall Street fat cats) what THOSE GROUPS don't want to hear."
John Dickerson "Obama's Closing Argument" Slate Magazine, 21 April, 2008

"Hard truths" and "Things people don't want to hear" are part of the stock in trade of American politics because the American public, as a whole sees itself as above being openly pandered to, and tough enough to hear about the difficult work that lies ahead. A stereotypical scene from older movies comes to mind, wherein a young man is seated in a doctor's office waiting for the prognosis, and when the doctor hesitates, the young man blurts out "C'mon, doc! Give it to me straight! I can take it!"

But time and again, candidates who openly pride themselves on their candor are typically judged by outside observers to be pandering. Not because the public has deluded itself as to what it wants - people dislike those they understand to be pandering (even if sometimes, their ideas of pandering seem to be driven by their like to dislike of the speaker, rather than the content of the message) - but because people rarely go into a political speech without an idea of what candor would look like. Combine that with people's tendency to conflate their interests with the interests of the nation, and you have a recipe for an inability to distinguish between truth and convenient falsehoods.

In reality, there are no such things as "hard truths" outside of an unexpected crisis, when people are turning to others precisely because they don't know what to expect or what they need to do next. In everyday life, for the person who has seen the hand writing on the wall, understands that their industries days are numbered and is preparing for a new career, "These jobs are leaving, and they aren't coming back," isn't a hard truth; instead, it's a confirmation of the path they've already decided on. But for the person who understands that it's too late for them to find another job that will allow them to live at the standard to which they've become accustomed, it isn't a hard truth, either; it's a convenient lie, invented to justify throwing them under the bus and handing their rightful benefits off to the undeserving.

When people are allowed to participate in their government, government is going to, at least outwardly, reflect the revealed preferences of those people who participate. And during campaigns, when people are voting their hopes, dreams and fears, the words of candidates for office will reflect those.