Texas Blue Mailbag: Week of 08/19/2007

Boy, we were worried for a while there that this week's Mailbag would be all serious. Fortunately for us, someone decided to ask a Ron Paul question.

the_front asks:

will the earnest and forthright feeling that is present in the country's base that the democratic party has constantly been appealing to for the last decade eventually win out over the culture of fear and irrationality that the neocons cultivated after 9/11?

Josh and George both ponder the question:

It's hard to fight fear and irrationality. But fear can usually be curbed by more immediate fear — and many are finding that the fear that their pockets are being picked by Republican malfeasance, whether at the pump or at the doctor's office or in various other ways, is a concern that affects everyday life in a very direct fashion. As that fear grows, the message the Democratic party brings to the table will be all the more appealing. I would guess that that's probably the part of the message most likely to win out first.

Crowd favorite LP returns. A challenge appears:

How can we, the plebians, ensure that elections aren't about "hot button issues" and talking points, or, more realistically, what can we do about that kind of hogwash since it is going to happen anyway?

George says:

...hey, don't I owe you an article on multi-party systems? This weekend. I promise.

Well, we're plebeians for a reason, aren't we? We — and by we I refer to the majority of Americans, the middle and lower class — often find ourselves too busy toiling the proverbial soil, or taking care of our kids, or standing around in a Black Friday shopping line to really get a good, thorough grasp of what's going on in the political arena. The original plebeians had their solution to this: they chose a group of people to watch over the Senate, to represent the interests of the common man, and, when necessary, to defend them against the more wealthy and powerful plebeians who were represented in the Senate. This group was the Roman tribune.

These days, we have a lot of Tribunes. Sometimes we even get Herald Tribunes. And Telegrams, and Chronicles, and Times, and Post-Intelligencers, and sundry other representatives, apparently. All these members of the Fourth Estate are in theory supposed to assure that candidates in elections don't get to steer conversation to their polarizing issues for which they have clever 30-second sound bites prepared, and instead actually have to engage the public in real issues that affect them directly.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the forum, if you will. Unlike the Roman tribune, our Tribunes are paid based on how much attention they grab, in the form of readership or viewership. This is whether the attention is good or bad, constructive or destructive. Sensationalist media does very, very well with "hot-button issues" and two-sided polarized arguments where two guys can sit at opposite sides of a table and yell at each other. They make a lot of money that way.

So what can we do about that kind of hogwash? Well, like you say, it's going to happen anyway — unless Americans magically stop buying into sensationalism, or somebody takes the money out of journalism, neither of which has a snowball's chance of happening (just like Ron Paul... oh, wait, never mind, Josh addresses that one below). So the best that those plebeians who actually are able to concern themselves with the goings-on of their government can do: inform yourself, and then inform others. It's easy enough to ignore message-controlled drivel and pay attention to past voting records, or contribution histories, or even who folks' golfing buddies are — and all are almost always more informative as a guide to what one will do in office than the sound bites candidates' communications directors wrote for them. And disseminate that information as well — that's the sort of boring factual analysis that many in the mainstream media would never be caught dead running. Find ways to spread what you find. Yes, that's a lot of work to ask of a concerned citizen. Sorry — that's the best I've got.

Stephanie from Austin asks:

Does Ron Paul have a snowball's chance in hell of making it to the big boy political dais?

Josh says:

No.

John asks:

Why aren't there any good political video games?

George, shocked, answers:

But of course there are good political video games! Josh just happens to agree with you on this one, but fortunately, I'm answering this question. Fortunately for YOU! The ones that immediately come to mind are Republic, A Force More Powerful, and the newer member of the Shadow President series, CyberJudas. Heck, if you like older games, Shadow President was fantastic, Crisis in the Kremlin was popular for a while, Hidden Agenda had some serious replay value... heck, I even liked President Elect, but that was sorta geared towards serious politics wonks. If you have friends to play with, you can go with Diplomacy or Politika; both are board game adaptations and great games to play with others, though playing against the computer gets old fast. If you don't need your "sim" to be all that "accurate," Doonesbury Election was a whole lot of fun. If economics is more your bag, maybe Stalin's Dilemma would fit the bill. I had to hit Google to remember the name of Solidarnosc, a game about the Polish communist movement which was actually a pretty good campaign sim.

Point here: there are lots and lots of political video games, many of them at the very least informative and instructional simulations, and some actually lots of fun.

Oh, and if your tastes lean more towards the CIA than the POTUS, play Spycraft. It's a Great Game.