The Boys from Massachusetts and the Virtues of Apathy

There is a swell of speculation on the net regarding the bizarre behavior of Senators Kerry and Kennedy in recent days. Their public statements have been so at odds with the political realities of the current situation as to lead some to question their mental stability. Roger Simon, for instance, thinks they are simply depressed. Glenn Reynolds thinks it's just petty jealousy. Other observers have declared them to have been unhinged by the outcome of the fall elections. The Diplomad asks, regarding Kerry, "Is this an insane man or does he just play one on TV?"

There are other explanations offered, based less in psychology than in the mechanisms of contemporary politics. Mickey Kaus thinks they are trolling for internet money from the lunatic left. Jim Geraghty thinks they are positioning Kerry for primary contests in 2008 where fringe groups have a disproportionate voice.

If the statements of leading Democrats are simply a matter of political calculation rather than temporary mental dissociation, we are facing a real emerging problem at the core of our current political system. The internet and campaign finance reform have empowered fringe elements of both parties and these groups increasingly drive the public dialogue. With regard to the danger of this I would point to my previous post on Robert Conquest who wrote:

Democracy cannot work without a fair level of political and social stability. This implies a certain amount of political apathy. Anything resembling fanaticism, a domination of the normal internal debate by "activists" is plainly to be deplored.

and,

All the major troubles we have had in the last half century have been caused by people who have let politics become a mania.

Fun is fun, guys, but we really do need to sit back and look at what we are doing. When we allow internet silliness to drive the political debates and shape the positions of serious candidates we are threatening to disrupt the underlying consensus upon which our democracy depends. And clearly the fabric is fraying: witness the "win at any price" endless contesting of election results, the emergence of single issue candidates like Dean who refuse to fade away after the election, the entry into the fray of eccentric mega-billionaires on all sides, the Clintonian permanent campaign, the "war room" mentality of the campaigns themselves, the abandonment of even a pretense of objectivity by major media organizations, the rise of extremist rhetoric on talk radio, the list could go on and on. I sincerely hope that Mickey and Jim are wrong, because if they are right, then they are charting an important stage in the destabilization of American democracy.