"What's that thing below the subtext?"

There's lots of commentary on the president's renewed support for, and the Senate's debate on, a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage. But what's really struck me is not the utter, oozy cynicism of the whole thing. No, that's clear, and was clear all through 2004, too. What's struck me as strange is that there is little or no effort to cover up the utter, oozy cynicism of the whole thing.

It's almost as if the administration is explicitly saying to its base, "Hey, look, I'm pandering to you in a ineffective, silly way, and this is supposed to satisfy you now."

This kind of reminds me of how Bush 41 used to slip into consultant speak some times to explain his actions. But back then, this was considered unusual. "The players in the game" are supposed to play their parts, and not provide commentary on their play at the same time. But with 24-7 cable news, etc., maybe we're all so "inside" the game that this is how we all speak and think about politics? The story is not about whether the Constitution should be amended, but rather about the electroal and power stakes involved in the president's actions.

The question, then, is whether such a politics is a tenable democratic politics. I mean, I have, from time to time, supported politicians, seekers of office. But when I did so, it was because I thought they would advance certain policies, not because they were effective at seeking and using political power. (And if you know the politicians I've supported, you know the latter part of that statement is true.) If politicians are only about power, and their efforts to manipulate voters are out there, in the bright, midday sun . . .