Eric is describing an emergent phenomenon in a particular system of politics that is often invisible to an outsider.
It upgrades one's cognitive toolkit by allowing someone reason in the second order (Assuming Kayfabe) vs. the first order (Taking things at face value).
If you can spot Kayfabe and realize that certain rivalries exist for the sole purpose of propping each other up, you realize that the degrees of freedom are far greater than it seems.
Not at all. Actually, observing how it works for realities or the gossipverse, you can spot the same patterns in politics: multiple (in USA "both") sides on some topic cluster their statements around some event, like passing of some act or relevant news.
Setting the conversation agenda is specially useful to hide inconvenient topics from public scrutiny. Sex regulation, religion and other "social" controversial discussions are very effective to create noise and put in the background the economic problems, that have often more direct and severe consequences for most people.
I think that's partly why some commenters think the article isn't all that valuable. IMO, it really does not at all apply to the Dems/Republicans fight. If you've spent any amount of time with people who actually work in politics, it's readily apparent there's no kind of mutual collusion between the parties. They can barely even "collude" internally to advance their agendas.
The whole thing is just a contest for who can get the most pithy soundbite for the day. It's horrible and ineffective and stupid but there's no "Republicans and democrats are working together to.... do exactly what?" conspiracy.
> If you've spent any amount of time with people who actually work in politics, it's readily apparent there's no kind of mutual collusion between the parties.
My admittedly limited experience suggests otherwise.
Many years ago, I worked for a state-level legislator, as an environmental aide. Although Republican, he supported (and contributed to) many good environmental bills. And worked closely with Democratic colleagues.
So one night over beer, I asked why he was Republican. And while he did make some cogent points about social and economic issues, his primary reason was that he lived in a Republican area, and that he'd never be elected as a Democrat.
On its face, this could be hundreds of thousands of people. All manner of legislative staffing, bureaucracy, public relations, media content production, etc. could be considered "in politics", when viewed through a hazy enough lens. As you say, none of these people admit knowledge of the kayfabe. OTOH, the lobbyists who actually write the bills and pull the strings? That's a much smaller group and yeah, they know it's largely kayfabe.
As a relatively recent example, much has been made of the current president's suitability as "commander-in-chief" (or lack thereof). One might have had the impression that there was a disagreement over how much military power he should command. Yet, somehow both parties in both houses of Congress agreed that he should get $740B in military spending rather than the $600B he requested.
There are often "symbolic votes" on issues, especially taken by the opposition party in a situation they know the bill could never become law. To take just one example, many Republicans ran for years on opposition to Obamacare and a promise to repeal it, even voting for repeal in the House and passing with wide margins. When finally Trump won the White House and the GOP controlled all 3 branches of gov't, they ultimately balked at voting to repeal[1].
In the reverse situation, it's understood that leadership in Congress often head counts up to the number of votes needed and then give a pass to members to symbolically vote against as long as it doesn't affect the outcome - e.g. the GOP impeachment votes.
> When finally Trump won the White House and the GOP controlled all 3 branches of gov't, they ultimately balked at voting to repeal.
Well, it is basically a Republican national healthcare program, which preserved the hugely profitable health insurance industry. Modeled on RomneyCare.
Which itself was modeled on the HEART act, the collaboration between literally Newt Gingrich and the Heritage Foundation in the mid nineties created when they thought Hillarycare might gain steam.
All of the major pieces, including individual mandate and exchanges makes it's way back to that proposed plan.
It's some real wag the dog shit. Both that Obama's "compromise" plan was the far right position on the mid nineties, and that Republicans still characterized it as just left of Trotsky taking the major provisions that they championed all the way to the supreme court.
I think one can view things through kayfabe lenses even if the parties are not consciously working together to achieve something: for example, in a wrestling match, the visuals are of "which of the two is strongest" but the reality is that the conflict is artificially created for the purpose of your entertainment. In politics the visuals are of "which policy is better" for a given topic, but the reality is more one of politicians acting in self-interest in a highly tribal environment.
> The whole thing is just a contest for who can get the most pithy soundbite for the day.
This is exactly it. The Rock isn't really going to dust anything off, turn it sideways, and ram it into anyone's candy ass. He's cutting a promo. It's kayfabe.
Similarly, the American process is entirely promotion. Are you a good fundraiser? Can you win popularity? Will you appoint the right cronies to the right positions? Can you cut a good soundclip? Then you've got a shot at the heavyweight title. Notice that at no point was anyone actually assessed on leadership capabilities. Professional Government. Politics Entertainment.
"The whole thing is just a contest"
You just said it yourself.
There's no contest if one refuses to partake.
The reason they compete for the pithiest soundbite instead on actual progress is Kayfabe.
The current president is literally both a Democrat and a Republican.
The OP article was written in 2011. Not long before, maybe as recent as 2000, there was a lot more so called "civility" in government, where most of the debate was pork barrel negotiations, not major party line votes on major legal upheavals.
R and D worked together on things like handing ever more power to corporations and the military industrial complex, and diverting national wealth to the weathiest people.
"If you can spot Kayfabe and realize that certain rivalries exist for the sole purpose of propping each other up, you realize that the degrees of freedom are far greater than it seems."
I feel as though this concept specifically isn't novel. Some would argue this situation could be applicable to the cold war--perhaps the soviet union didn't prop the United States up, but it certainly allowed us to foster and strengthen our sense of nationalism, which typically leads to a more robust state.
It upgrades one's cognitive toolkit by allowing someone reason in the second order (Assuming Kayfabe) vs. the first order (Taking things at face value).
If you can spot Kayfabe and realize that certain rivalries exist for the sole purpose of propping each other up, you realize that the degrees of freedom are far greater than it seems.