Teach Voters Patience and End Sitcom Politics

July 27, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (6)

Sorry, I keep coming up with these theories--let me test this one out and see what people think. I have been mulling this over for a while.

My theory is that there is a huge gap between what we have been taught to expect from government, from the private sector, from society in general, and what is being delivered. Most of us have grown up now in the post TV-sitcom era. Our nightly shows, beginning in the 1950s, were designed to introduce characters, present a problem or dilemma and solve it all in the space of 24 minutes, allowing time for commercials. We were ingrained with the notion that problems were easy to solve. Heck, if Father Knows Best could do it in a half hour or Bonanza could take 48 minutes, as Alfred E. Neuman would say in Mad magazine, “What, Me Worry?”

Couple those ingrained “solve it now” TV sitcoms with the explosion of technology where everything is increasingly instantaneous and everyone’s expectations are raised and you encourage immediate gratification. Everything about our culture now eschews patience.

Voters clearly are not patient, not ready to provide their leaders with any  “benefit of the doubt.” Voters are increasingly angry with the status quo, with Washington, with those in charge at all levels. They are certainly not at all sanguine when they have lost their jobs, had their homes foreclosed on, lost money in savings and retirement, watched as their earnings have declined and the costs of education, healthcare, and housing have skyrocketed. Why, for heaven’s sake, should we blame voters for the mood they have been in for several years?

So, the question is, has the overall psyche of Americans changed? Have we become less accepting of things as they are, of problems that we are confronting, of the ups and downs? Have Americans begun to be less hopeful and optimistic?

Small wonder, when they see the stock market soar hundreds of points the last few days after it tanked a similar amount a little more than a week ago. If you check your investments (if you have any) on a daily basis you would have mental, physical and financial whiplash. You can’t trust anything from day to day when it comes to the stock market.  And often there is no rhyme or reason for the wild fluctuations.

So we see poll numbers bounce all over the place--if you are an office holder or candidate, you are a hero one moment, a bum the next. Your numbers are like the stock market except most of the direction is down.

Candidates always sensed the importance of promising, of providing the answer, of tapping into that “elect me, I’ll take care of it” notion. Jimmy Carter said that all we needed was “a government as good and as honest and as decent as the American people.” Our problems could and would be solved. After Watergate and Nixon, this sounded pretty good. After a quarter century of watching TV shows where all the problems were solved at a sitting, this all seemed logical.

Of course, by 1980 we had hostages in Iran and misery indexes and our problems weren’t being solved in 24 minute chunks. We had a national “malaise.” 

George W. Bush promised to “change Washington” in 2000 and left with approval ratings in the 20s. Barack Obama has watched as his poll numbers have plummeted basically because the economy has not rebounded fast enough.

[See 10 keys to an Obama comeback.]

So, as politically hard as it may be, is it time for us to admit we can’t have our cake and eat it too; we can’t reduce deficits and have the kind of services we demand without taxes; we can’t pay for wars and a volunteer military without sacrifice; we can’t expect to solve our toughest problems without making tough choices.

Will our nation accept leaders who admit that attacking entitlements will mean changes in expectations, raising the retirement age for Social Security, not guaranteeing large cost of living increases, restructuring Medicare and Medicaid, even reducing certain services?

[See which industries give the most to Congress.]

Will we embrace politicians who campaign on proposals for national service, for increased sacrifice by those at the upper ends of the economic spectrum, and who will call for rethinking our entire pension and retirement system?

Will we see candidates who stop blathering about “freedom” and “socialism” and actually admit that these problems are tough to solve and need an honest and direct dialogue with the American people? And will we see more politicians who believe that the government at all levels has a real role in solving these problems and believe that, after all, the government is us.

The time to push the problems down the road is long past.

Candidates and office holders can’t continue to sugar coat where we are and promise easy answers--this ain’t Father Knows Best any more.

Tags:
2010 Congressional elections,
Barack Obama,
social security,
George W. Bush,
government,
Richard M. Nixon,
Jimmy Carter,
Medicaid,
Medicare

Reader Comments Read all comments (6)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

when obama had a colonoscopy they found you up there.you are a hatfull racist.

ff were the proplom bush warned of that your liberal frank said theres no proplom . obama has benn in office now going on 21 month. unemployment is allmost 10 percent.people are tired of his spending money making this country and making this a wellfare nation. im sick of his apoligy tour

todd of TX 5:19PM September 02, 2010

This is completely wrong. Bush only warned about F/F at a time when there was no problem. The real problem was in the private mortgage market not with F/F. It was the private mortgage lenders that threw lending standards out the window to make profits, not banks beholden to CRA lending standards; they have strict standards and rules to adhere to in making loans to low and moderate income people. It was the subprime loans that defaulted, not the loans made to those the government sought to help. These people didn't get subprime loans nor did F/F purchase very many of these loans. It was all done by the private mortgage markets. The reason F/F got into the subprime market at all was due to pressure from their shareholders, not the federal government. You have it all wrong.

The reason private mortgage lenders threw lending standards out the window (and they lent to many affluent people who also defaulted) was because when the stock market declined, bottoming out in 2003, Wall Street investors needed a new high yield category of financial derivative to invest in. The housing bubble gave them the MBS and they ran with it. Subprime loans began to be securitized in great quantities. According to an analysis by the Fed, over 3.5 million subprime loans were made by December 2007 when the recession began. Most of these were made by private mortgage lenders who had nothing to do with government requirements to make loans to the poor.

"By 2006, the market had surpassed $600 billion and accounted for one-fifth of mortgage originations. Independent mortgage companies made 46 percent of these loans...Nondepository mortgage providers such as mortgage lenders and brokers are regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of a federal body responsible for comprehensive oversight. Comptroller of the Currency John Dugan reported that these companies “originated the overwhelming preponderance of toxic subprime mortgages” and these loans “account for a disproportionate percentage of defaults and foreclosures nationwide...The Federal Reserve Board researched whether the CRA played a substantial role in the subprime loan crisis. Its staff analysis of 2006 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data and other sources concludes that the CRA did not contribute to or cause this crisis...Contrary to the widely held perception that most higher-priced loans were made to lower-income groups targeted by the CRA, 55 percent of higher-priced loan originations went to middle- and upper-income borrowers or borrowers in middle- and upper-income neighborhoods in 2005 and 2006. Only 6 percent of higher-priced loan originations made by banking institutions and their affiliates in 2005 and 2006 went to lower-income borrowers or borrowers in lower-income neighborhoods within CRA assessment areas..."

http://www.dallasfed.org/ca/bcp/2009/bcp0901.cfm

Your accusations clearly refer to the CRA and F/F. They had nothing to do with the subprime crisis that sank the economy.

steve of IL 5:41PM July 30, 2010

Your link is dated Aug, 21, 2009. I have been saying recession was due to sub prime. But you say too little loans was sub prime. So, what is title of your link:

“Economists Say Unemployment Has Overtaken Subprime Loans as Chief Cause of Foreclosures”

You are so easy to discredit Steve.

Had Democrats listen to Bush recession may have been adverted or lessened.

Who pushed sub prime ? Clinton, lawyer obama, and Acorn as I have proven before.

Oh what caused the high unemployment Steve. The collapse of Wall Street. What caused the collapse of Wall Street. The bad home loans forced upon them. By who ? Clinton, lawyer obama, and Acorn.

Next you will say this a a conspiracy by Fox. Go for it Steve. In your nature.

Bill Hedges of MO 2:27AM July 28, 2010

Peter Fenn

Peter Fenn

Peter Fenn is a Democratic political strategist and head of Fenn Communications, one of the nation's leading political and public affairs media firms. Fenn Communications has worked in over 300 campaigns, from presidential to mayoral, and has represented a number of Fortune 500 companies. Fenn is also an adjunct professor at George Washington University's Graduate School of Political Management. Follow him on Twitter @peterhfenn.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement