Ann Davidow

It seems it isn't enough to have a political opinion and to exercise freedom of speech without spending inordinate amounts of cash or to ignore the parts of the Constitution that don't fit an ideological profile. Thus the Supreme Court and other supporters of unfettered gun rights choose to ignore the amendment's opening lines "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Where are those well-regulated militias to which the second amendment refers?

And no-one has yet offered a satisfactory explanation for defining money as free speech or for congratulating candidates who disrespect the president, the press or each other with rude, self serving remarks. Ever since Congressman Joe Wilson interrupted president Obama's state-of-the-union speech by shouting "you lie" and was criticized by some but rewarded with contributions from supporters the tone of our political discourse has grown ever coarser and more inappropriate.

This country affords its citizens the right and opportunity to express views that may or may not be popular but for some reason this right has deteriorated into a license to ignore facts and supplant them with opinion and the assumption that any view may be posited on any occasion. The inexcusable behavior of Boston Bruin goalie, for example, in refusing an invitation to the White House honoring his team - - winners of last year's Stanley Cup - - was unconscionable and allowed political bias to interfere with the nature of an a-political celebration. Somewhere along the line we have lost a sense of rudimentary common courtesy. People like Tim Thomas seem to think it is acceptable to use any opportunity to express their personal views no matter how inappropriate or disrespectful. Thomas played a great series but receives a failing grade in good citizenship.

The race to the bottom in which Republican potential nominees are  engaged continues apace. Nobody expects politics to be a non-combative  clean exercise in terms of truth and fresh ideas. But the diabolically  perverse inventions that clog media outlets and confuse debate on a  daily basis are exasperating claims on our time without rewarding us with better options - - empty-headed pretentious chatter posing as  intelligent thought.

In the guise of respecting democratic processes Rick Santorum tells an  audience that they should elect people who share the same values and hope to enact those values into law. His views are so far to the right  they would impose rigorous religious structures on our political system. Never mind that Santorum and others like him claim to abide by the Constitution, forgetful it would seem of that document's specific exclusionary language that stipulates no religious test should ever be required as a voting prerequisite.

In general religion has been introduced into every political contest as the best adjudicator of who dwells in the upper regions of truth and morality. Of course those two attributes aren't always in evidence on the hard right where "free markets" and tight control of food stamps for example are at variance with Christian principles of caring for the less fortunate among us. In fact just the opposite is true as capitalism is the ruling principle conservatives profess.

It gets harder and harder to think 2012 will bring some relief from the grinding partisan bickering of 2011. And it is discouraging to listen to former supporters of the president take such vitriolic positions now - - Matt Damon comes to mind. What makes people like Damon act as if they are policy experts anyway?

There are areas of disappointment for even the most avid Obama devotees but there doesn't seem to be enough credit given for the successes the administration has achieved in a difficult economy, with an obstructionist faction in Congress, filibuster after filibuster and the insistence that legislation requires a sixty-vote threshold. Democrats should be careful not to let their disappointments create an even more fractious legislative climate in 2012 and find an alternative way of approaching a better way forward.

Hopefully, when elections are in full swing Romney (one assumes it will be Mitt in the end) will not be allowed to get away with his outrageous fabrications and avoidance tactics. Do most Republican supporters really know who Marie Antoinette was and what Romney was driving at in any case? If ever a tag was misapplied the let-them-eat-cake line is about as inappropriate in terms of Obama as past attacks calling him a Socialist or a secret Muslim. And coming from a multi-millionaire building a new monster home it is doubly ludicrous, especially considering Romney's position that foreclosures should be allowed to play out and government assistance to desperate homeowners curtailed.

There are limits to what a business approach to the problems facing the general population can accomplish. All those pronouncements by well-meaning members of the public that they couldn't run their homes the way the government runs it house are at a far remove from the exigencies of governing a complex nation state. And conservative attempts to cut funding for food stamps are counter-productive because that reduction would do little to curb the deficit and at the same time keeps a sure-thing financial boost from working when recipients put food-stamp funds right back into the economy. One has to wonder if the deficit hounds really understand what they're talking about.

There is a body of opinion that maintains if only we ran the government like a business the country would be in better shape- - our debt would vanish, our trade would balance and voters would be forced to make better decisions about their life-style and investment strategies. People would save for emergencies, retirement and health-care needs and it would be unnecessary for government agencies to spend tax-payer funds to subsidize ill-advised decision-makers and protect consumers from themselves.

The fact is however, that government is not a business nor should it be so defined. The marketplace is after all designed to create an environment for industry to make money for itself and investors with little regard for how its policies affect the larger community When corporate leaders decide how to prosper no-one should be fooled into believing that, except in very rare instances, they have the interests of average individuals in mind. Corporate greed and manipulative investment brokers have eaten away at what remains of the American dream and defy anything remotely resembling a level playing field.

The current Congress and our shamefully biased Supreme Court continue to support policies that are a far cry from the kind of country we had come to believe the founders had in mind and out of touch with the progress that had been made in the area of human rights. It's as if a new philosophical model had been thrust upon the intellectual trappings of hard-won democratic principles. Some would argue that we are not, in any case, a democracy but rather a republic and therefore we can't expect democratic processes to obtain in all cases. Perhaps that is why today's political ideals as enunciated by the Republican Party often ignore fair labor practices and human rights issues in favor of rugged Ayn-Rand-style individualism.

One of the most daunting tasks this country faces isn't the deficit or tax policy or how big the government is. Rather it is convincing ourselves and the world that we are a serious people. Nothing about the current political scene suggests that we have begun to mount the kind of critical thinking needed to address our most pressing issues. Instead we are swept up in an often ugly expression of ideological preference and a decision-making procedure that occurs outside any logical, problem-solving matrix.

So much time is spent discussing the definitions of conservative and liberal that any coherent thought process is obscured by a mindless adherence to political labels used for the sake of convenience - - substitutes for real thought. Having decided for the most part that profound thinking is just too ponderous supporters turn instead to so-called "idea" men like Newt Gingrich whose ideas are often a throwback to century's-old concepts of how society should be structured. We haven't heard recently his suggestion that we should establish a system of orphanages but are informed that the poor have no decent role models, need to bathe and find jobs and that he, all evidence to the contrary, has not been and is not now a lobbyist but has earned millions of dollars for the 'historical perspective' he is able to convey to audiences and contributors.

Apparently when one's biography becomes overly complicated voters are asked to throw out conflicting details and embrace those things that enable them to get behind a leader no matter how flawed. Sometimes all it takes is empty obeisance to such things as the defense of marriage, the right to choose or one's sexual preference, all matters that have no bearing on issues that vex the world but require actual know-how and the wisdom to redress crisis-level world problems. When a caller to c-span's Washington Journal opines that any one of the current crop of Republican presidential wannabes would be an improvement over President Obama it is obvious how badly we have stumbled in assessing the acceptability quotient of perspective leaders.

For many the answer is whoever wins the fast-talking prize or attacks in the meanest terms anyone who disagrees with them. For others religion takes the place of problem-solving in a 'this-world' context. Lately there has been a flurry of what I would call the Stepford-Christian approach. There are probably many other examples but three come to mind, troubling in their hollow repetitious cadence. A golf pro after winning an important tournament thanks "his lord and savior Jesus Christ," a quarterback uses the same exact words after a victorious performance. And, in the course of condemning the president for omitting any mention of God in his Thanksgiving address a critic was asked how he would have spoken and uses the same precise lord-and-savior message too. It's as if a little recording plays endlessly in these people's heads. Who, after all speaks in such an almost gleeful manner not only in professing a particular religious observance but in the exclusionary nature of it?

It's as if we live in an environment of anomalies where things don't really have to make sense, they just have to express a certain point of view no matter how irrelevant or partisan. And we are presented with candidates and ideas that defy intelligent or profound sensibilities. Nine, nine, nine or the idea that Medicare could become a voucher system grab headlines but never find a solid baseline of understanding among the electorate. In time they almost become non-entities in political debate because they are so arcane or so out of mainstream thinking they confound productive examination. Can we possibly imagine that the weak, mean-spirited dialogue in which we are currently engaged is the best we have to offer - - a national mindset that says look here, we are a serious, well-intentioned people who deserve to be world leaders?

In the current cacophony of failed talking points we seek comfort in short-term thinking that defies resolution of long-term intransigent problems. We have yet to convince friend and foe alike that we are serious about our situation and our place in the world. Whatever faults reside with Obama the quality of his naysayers is an indictment of a process that allows a stubbornly low level of intelligence to animate the political process.