Supreme Achievement Of American Politics: Convincing Voters Simultaneously That Everything Is Great And The Country Is Literally On Fire
WASHINGTON, D.C. (BOHINEY.COM DATELINE) — Political scientists at the University of Texas at Austin have confirmed what most Americans have suspected since approximately 2004: that the defining communicative achievement of modern U.S. governance is the successful maintenance of two entirely contradictory messages, delivered simultaneously, at volume, across seventeen different screens, to the same voter, who somehow holds both without their head exploding, which researchers describe as "frankly the most impressive thing about the American public and we do not say that sarcastically, entirely."
The Dual Signal: A Technical Breakdown For People Who Still Watch Cable News
Message A, transmitted primarily through Rose Garden ceremonies, State of the Union addresses, jobs reports issued on the first Friday of every month, and the portion of any press briefing where the spokesperson is reading from the prepared remarks, runs as follows: the economy is booming, unemployment is at historic lows, America is respected on the world stage, the stock market is doing a thing that benefits you personally even if you have checked your 401(k) and are not sure this is true, and any remaining difficulties are the direct and exclusive result of decisions made by the previous administration, which was a catastrophe, regardless of which party ran it or how long ago it ended.
Message B, transmitted through the same party's fundraising emails — which arrive at a frequency that suggests the entire operation is powered by impending doom — as well as town halls, primary debates, super PAC ads, and any text message sent between Labor Day and Election Day that begins with the word "URGENT" in capitals: the Republic is collapsing, democracy is hanging by a thread the thickness of a single fundraising deadline, the other side is not merely wrong but actively evil in ways that require a minimum donation of $25 to counteract, and if you do not act in the next 47 minutes the consequences will be too terrible to describe but are described anyway in the next three paragraphs.
The American Voter: Holding Both Messages Since At Least The Clinton Administration
What makes this achievement genuinely remarkable, researchers note, is its bipartisan durability. Pew Research data consistently shows Americans reporting relative personal satisfaction while simultaneously believing the country as a whole is headed in catastrophically the wrong direction — a dissociation so stable and so consistent across decades and administrations that psychologists have given it a name, which is "the optimism gap," and which politicians have given a different name, which is "the fundraising model."
The average American voter, surveys suggest, currently believes: that their own job is secure (Message A), that jobs are being destroyed (Message B); that their neighborhood is safe (Message A), that crime is out of control (Message B); that their personal doctor is fine (Message A), that the healthcare system is a national disgrace (Message B); and that the specific elected official representing their district is probably okay (Message A), that Congress as an institution should be dissolved and its members catapulted into the sun (Message B). All of these beliefs are held simultaneously. None of them are examined for internal consistency. This is called being an informed citizen.
Historical Context: America Invented This And Then Perfected It
"Every democracy manages some version of this," said Professor Dale Hutchinson-Webb of the UT Austin Department of Political Communication, author of Fine And Panicking: Two Centuries Of American Political Doublethink. "But America has the infrastructure advantage. You can hit someone with Message A on Fox News at 7pm, Message B via a fundraising email at 7:42pm while they're loading the dishwasher, Message A again through a White House Instagram reel at 8:15pm, and Message B one final time via a push notification at 10:30pm that says 'We're almost out of time' — which is technically true in that all things are temporary, but is being used to mean something more specific."
The technological refinement of the dual message has accelerated with each electoral cycle. The 2024 election cycle saw record political spending exceeding $16 billion, a substantial portion of which was deployed specifically to ensure that the correct message reached the correct voter on the correct platform at the correct emotional moment — fine on LinkedIn, terrified on Facebook, aspirational on Instagram, and apocalyptic in the email that arrives at 11:58pm on the last day of the fundraising quarter.
The Fundraising Email: A Distinct Art Form Deserving Separate Study
No examination of the American dual-message system is complete without specific attention to the fundraising email, which represents the purest distillation of Message B in the political communications ecosystem. A full taxonomy would exceed this article's word count, but the essential features include: a subject line containing either a name (usually the opponent's), a number (usually a deadline), or the word "URGENT," "CRITICAL," "LAST CHANCE," or some combination thereof; an opening sentence that begins mid-crisis, as though the reader has joined a disaster already in progress; a body section that escalates from concern through alarm to existential dread across approximately four paragraphs; a suggested donation amount that appears reasonable by the time the reader reaches it, having been softened by the preceding catastrophe; and a postscript from a senior staffer confirming that things are even worse than described in the main body, personally.
These emails arrive, for the average registered voter on both party lists, at a rate of between four and eleven per day during election season. The Annenberg Public Policy Center has documented the volume and emotional escalation patterns of political email fundraising, noting that the messaging has grown consistently more urgent over successive cycles regardless of actual political conditions, suggesting that the urgency is not a response to events but a feature of the format.
What Happens When A Journalist Points This Out
It has been tried. The response, on both sides of the aisle, follows a consistent pattern: the Message A spokesperson explains that the journalist is being negative and failing to acknowledge genuine progress; the Message B spokesperson explains that the journalist is being naive and failing to acknowledge genuine threat; both explain that the other side is the one doing the contradicting; and the journalist, caught between two people each accusing the other of the thing both are doing, publishes a piece that is described by readers on both sides as biased toward the other side, which is in its own way a form of balance.
The system is, in other words, self-sealing. The contradiction cannot be pointed out from inside it because pointing it out becomes, immediately, another data point in one of the two messages. This is not a flaw in the design. This is the design.
A Note On Whether Any Of This Is Fixable
Political reform advocates suggest public campaign finance, media literacy education, and ranked-choice voting as structural interventions that might reduce the incentive to maintain the dual message at maximum volume indefinitely. These proposals have been under discussion for between fifteen and forty years, depending on which one you pick. They have not been implemented at federal scale. Their advocates continue to believe they will be. This belief is itself an expression of Message A, which, one has to admit, has remarkable staying power.
— Bohiney.com Political Correspondent, Fine And Also Terrified, Donations Accepted At The Link Below, Just Kidding, We're A Satire Site, Though The Button Is Right There If You Want It https://bohiney.com/supreme-achievement-of-american-politics/
Comments
Post a Comment