A presumption common to much of the political news coming out the U.S. these days is that voters have rejected party politics to be "independents," and that these voters represent a vast "middle" from which candidates must draw. Good luck with that.
I'd argue that these voters have instead migrated to various extremes, and that the only thing they may share in common is an unredeemable distrust and impatience with government.
A growing body of voters don't want our leaders to do anything; we elect them so they can oppose and undo what other politicians try to accomplish -- a proverbial Them who, in general, represent the anthesis of whatever it is you hold dear -- and then once they make the mistake of actual involvement in conversation with their peers or, gasp, participate in a piece of legislation that doesn't otherwise dismantle some past bill or function of government, they become part of the problem and are at risk of getting replaced in the next election cycle by a candidate who hasn't sullied his or her reputation by ever having done anything whatsoever.
To characterize the political expectations of these extremists as a "middle" of anything other than chaos is a fantasy invention and easy excuse for cable talk show hosts; I think there's something far deeper going on, and it involves the changing way people (voters or consumers) relate to institutions, whether government or business:
- We seem to be far more interested in what they do wrong than what they do right, and our doubts on their capacity for the latter are matched only by our suspicions of the former.
- Our attachment to symbols fires our passions but can be evermore detached from what we’re willing to do because of them, so our loyalty to leaders and brands can be quite brittle and short-lived.
- We're willing to believe anything and nothing simultaneously, as if the context of reality itself is nothing more than a collection of fluid opinions, making every interpretation of any communication believable at some level.
I thought the Internet was supposed to link everyone into viable communities, and that the ubiquity of information would make ignorance a thing of the past. It has done neither, and we see it proven every day by victorious throw-out-the-bastards political campaigns and social media stunts that deliver a zillion clicks in celebration of bellybutton lint. These experiences have little to do with involving people in effective government or sustainable brands.
There's something more going on here, and I'm not sure it's so good.
