• Domestic Policy
• Foreign Policy
• Grassroots
• Law
• Media
• Meta
• Religion
• Rhetoric and Framing
• Technology and Tools
• Voting and Elections
• War

• September 2005
• August 2005
• July 2005
• June 2005
• May 2005
• April 2005
• March 2005

This isn't really an entry about Schiavo, so bear with me if your eyes are already glazing over.

So, the Schiavo issue has pretty much sucked all the oxygen out of other issues - bankruptcy, judicial nominees, the budget, the environment, even social security.

I don't have much to say about Schiavo. It's very sad. The poor woman has had her feeding tube detached and multiple times by now, and it's just cruel. Being a bit closer to politics than most people, I can identify with the need we feel to express an opinion and act from it. But I just don't have one on this matter, other than a general sense that Congress should just mind their own damn business.

Oxygen, however, is another matter. Political Oxygen. It's all tied in to framing, marketing, and tipping points. To put it simply, the ability to affect change is related to the amount of available oxygen there is.

It's a great metaphor, if a bit abstract. I like to think of three common ways to deal with this kind of oxygen:

• Conserving Air: People do this when they make a judgment of how much oxygen there is for an issue - how much appetite there is for change, and how much room there is to maneuver. They treat it as a fixed space. They'll take limited steps to affect change, and reject the prospect of doing more, on the grounds that just because something should be possible doesn't mean it is. These are the pragmatists that reject idealism.
• Huffing and Puffing: People do this when they completely deny the oxygen that is available to them, and insist on filling the limited space with their own need to bloviate. They're not actually increasing the likelihood of change happening, because there still isn't the oxygen for it. They're just sucking the air away from everyone else. They believe that something being impossible is irrelevant, because it should be possible. These are the idealists that reject pragmatism.
• Creating New Oxygen: People do this when they recognize that change is needed, and when they also see that there isn't the oxygen for that change. They then take the steps needed to actually create more space for it. They find that something should be possible, and then they actually work to make it possible. These are the pragmatic idealists.

When you look at it that way, it's obvious which category is the one we should aim for. However, what we tend to see far too often are people in the first two categories. And too many people see it as a binary choice; you're either one or the other.

It's interesting to go through each of the categories and decide who in the political sphere is in each category. I'd say that most congresscritters, especially weak-spined ones, are in the Air-Conserving category. They too often reject that they can actually create more oxygen. I'd put folks like many radio hosts - and many bloggers - in the Huffing and Puffing category. Nader, too - I can't express how frustrated I was to see Nader offered up as an alternative to the first category.

And, I'm sure many would disagree, but I'd definitely put Michael Moore in the third category. He definitely makes me roll my eyes at times, but that guy's just got a knack for changing the topic of conversation, and creating new interest. He's definitely not a voice crying out alone into the wildnerness. I also think a lot of the movers and shakers from the hard right in the third category. I don't agree with their ideals, but they've definitely taken pragmatic steps to increase their own power.