Worry Worts

UPDATED 7/6

I'm never understood the pessimists who insist America is tanking like the Celtics looking toward the NBA lottery. Until, that is, I realized it's a substitute for concern about Al Qaeda, an explaination common to Daniel Henninger in today's Wall Street Journal:

This is an unusual election to handicap. Setting aside the trick of a candidate avoiding statements now that would look irretrievably dumb 15 months from now, the campaigns have to contend with an American public fixated on a paradox: About 70% of polled people say the country is on the "wrong track," notwithstanding that the scenery along the track includes some three years of strong-to-moderate economic growth, 4% unemployment and a stock market that's been on an upward march for three years. So what's the problem?

Two weeks ago when Mike Bloomberg was in the news, wisdom had it that the mind of the "independent voter" was the Rosetta Stone for decoding American politics. This past weekend the Washington Post outputted a massive and dense polling analysis of the independent voter. If one assumes as I do that the partisan intensity of our politics has widened the number of voters who feel the parties are "not speaking to them," then the Post's numbers may serve as a useful proxy for their views, at least between May 3 and June 3.

The generalization that emerges from the Post survey's data is that independent voters (this includes Democratic and Republican leaners) have deep concerns about . . . everything. Combining those who say an issue is "extremely important" to them or "very important" puts the totals well above 50% for health care, the economy, terrorism, immigration, taxes, corruption and of course "the situation" in Iraq, with a combined 89% importance ranking, most of it negative.

This is the Worry Wart vote, a condition brought on by spending too much time with politics. . .

Rethinking political management amid deep partisan division would be a dandy avocation if we lived in normal times, say Sept. 10, 2001. But we don't. Last weekend, the forces of civilization foiled planned barbarian bombings and mass death for innocent civilians in London and Glasgow. One month ago, they foiled a plot to blow up the gasoline fuel pipeline at JFK airport. A month before that they arrested six men, enraptured by jihadist videos, who concluded it was their life's goal to blow up soldiers at Fort Dix, N.J. Before that they foiled a well-advanced plot to demolish U.S.-bound airliners over the Atlantic. This week Spain completed its trial of 28 people charged with the 2004 Madrid train bombing that killed 191.

I haven't conducted a poll, but my guess is this is the real reason many in the U.S. feel the country is on the wrong track. The possibility of mass, mortal risk is the one constant in life today; it's always floating beneath the changing surface of stock prices, gasoline prices or Sen. Obama's blueprints for universal health care.

MORE:

Cogito in comments here, applying "swarm theory" to determining political priorities and direction:

Is there adequate competition among ideas in the U.S.? Even if there is, isn't it true that some voters don't want to consider others' ideas? And of course, the voting procedures are sometimes imperfect.

So, should a candidate follow the crowd like just another one of the wildebeests, or should he/she clearly express his/her goals to provide voters with a diversity of options, encourage dialogue and consideration of all sides of every issue, and ensure an effective mechanism that yields proper choices? Yes, the wildebeests may live in constant anxiety and are ready to bolt at the slightest hint of a predator. It may sometimes save them from hyena or lions, but does anyone want us to pick the next POTUS based primarily on that concern? Perhaps the crocodiles.