Zurtlespace

Much has been made of the various closures and suspensions of government facilities and services: Yellowstone, Yosemite, The Washington Monument. Some of these are particularly hysterical, such as officials blacking out the windows of Liberty Hall through which the Liberty Bell can be seen. Apparently, the bell is like a googleAd—it costs the owner for every view. Other hilarious closures include the National Mall and the WWII and Vietnam Memorials, which makes one wonder at how public “public” space truly is, since these memorials are not enclosed and presumably require more money to close—and keep under excessive guard—than to leave unattended, free for the vulgar masses to vandalize and venerate at their leisure—leisure being a commodity with a current excess of supply among certain groups.

Washington Monument Syndrome—which is a concept that, prior to last friday, I never knew had a name (thanks Oren)—seems to be at the heart of this patently silly game of political chicken. Both sides seem to be intent on making a public display of government dysfunction so as to, when the dust settles, pin as much blame upon the other side as possible. The american people, generally, are smarter than this, but the sad thing is, it almost doesn't matter&mdashthe current players are the only game in town; as Kang and Kodos would say “You have to vote for one of us!” As such, a third option seems ever less likely to present itself.

The political game in general, and in this situation in particular, can be as deceptive to the politicians as they can be to their constituents. When situations are set up in such a way that there must always be a clear winner and loser, the merits of victory can become tenuous. Because it is easier to destroy (or ignore) opposing ideas than it is to build, expand and fortify your own, it is tempting to focus on the former to the exclusion of the latter. As such, it can start to seem in the eyes of many that the failure of one set of ideas is proof of the validity of the opposing set. In this way, arguments can start to resemble wars, and positions become armies whose individual members must be supported at all times, regardless of their individual validity. As a result, whoever wins will, in all likelihood, believe that they prevailed because they were right, and that America at large agrees with them, not because their position was just slightly less intolerable than the opposing one. Thus, the politicians are using as a barometer of their success a metric that is not entirely reliable. Vince Lombardi was wrong; winning isn't everything. How victory is achieved is just as important if not moreso. Such a disconnect with reality can only encourage more of the same problematic behavior in the future.

This seems to be what is going on in Washington. It is almost as though the politicians, tired of the general deadlock (which is itself manufactured), have constructed (or fabricated) a situation that will have to end in someone's favor in a big way; big enough to command an implicit mandate allowing for a complete and one-sided de-corking of the current legislative bottleneck. As such it almost doesn't matter who wins, since this sort of free and instantaneous political capital, combined with politicians mired in the beltway echo-chamber, guarantees that no matter who wins, everybody loses.

Posted with Blogsy