START Making Sense

So... Obama completes a long negotiation that will downsize America and Russia's nuclear arsenals, make the world a tiny bit safer and increase the leverage we can bring on North Korea and Iran (not to mention Pakistan and India).

The GOP won't ratify it, apparently.

The NY Times (and no doubt other news sources) are writing breathlessly about "what this means for Obama's leadership."

ARRRRRGGGGGGHH!!!!!!

Here's a question: What does the START treaty mean for national security?  Global security?  Nuclear proliferation?

Here's another question: What does NOT ratifying START mean, since the last agreement has expired and we can no longer inspect Russian nuclear facilities?

Here's one more: When will the political media stop being the ugly version of Entertainment Tonight obsessing over "who's hot and who's not"?  When will discussions of policy actually focus on what's in the policy rather than on the political optics of it all?

One of the reasons Republicans are so good at politics and Democrats are so shitty at it is that the media is constantly obsessed with process and the "horse race".  News stories are inevitably framed by political controversy and competition rather than good governance.  Politico is the current top purveyor of this nonsense with their goal of "winning the morning" news cycle.

But considering what the actual effects of something complex like the START treaty is beyond their abilities.  Beyond the way they see their job.

The result is a barren political debate where Death Panels and Swift Boat Veterans and Keeping Government Out Of Medicare become the coin of the realm.  And efforts to save the world from nuclear annihilation are a chance to explore the "optics" of the post 2010 election Obama administration.

Jefferson once said he would prefer a country with newspapers and no government over a country with a government and no newspapers.

Which is why I've always felt Jefferson was something of a prat.