More or Less

More or less?

That's the question in politics today.

What's the solution to the financial crisis? More regulation, or less regulation?

What's the best way to create jobs? More government spending, or less government spending?

What's the best way for Obama to lead? More TV appearances, or fewer TV appearances?

Should the current healthcare bill provide more coverage to the uninsured, or less?

In Afghanistan, do we need more troops, or fewer troops?

For the vast independent middle, these questions are too difficult to answer. Compassion is balanced against thrift, the free market is balanced against the fair market, the need to lead is balanced against the need to listen -- and heads start spinning.

Americans want change, but they have no idea what change they want. Each side, of course, claims that Americans are clamoring for their kind of change, but the schizophrenic elections we've been having only prove that we have a schizophrenic electorate.

So we go with the person who just feels right -- the person who seems to share our rage, but doesn't share answers. A year ago that person was Barack Obama. Today it's Scott Brown. Tomorrow it could be Sarah Palin. Or it might be Pat Buchanan. Or it could switch back and be a liberal Senator like Sherrod Brown. The public isn't looking for answers. It's looking for a placeholder for their feelings.

Ultimately, the answer to the above questions is probably going to be that we need to do more with less. Maximum regulation with minimum red tape. Maximum jobs created with minimum dollars spent. Maximum health coverage with minimum cost to taxpayers. Maximum inspiration with minimum words. Maximum security with minimum troops. But that's a hard rallying cry. And actually creating "more with less" solutions is hard work.

Obama knows this. Hopefully Scott Brown knows this. But until a ruling majority knows this, and passes this, and explains this, we'll continue to vote, more or less, based on feelings.

Posture Politics

I'm trying to get my head around how Scott Brown won such an incredible victory in one of the bluest states in the country. And I think a lot of it comes down to the fact that he understood -- and won -- the game of posture politics.

Posture politics is the opposite of policy politics. Policy politics is what's practiced by Mike Bloomberg. And it's what's practiced by Barack Obama to a large extent. It takes a look at a problem, gets smart people in a room, and tries to think of the best way to solve the problem. Sometimes it's a government program. Sometimes it's a tax. Sometimes it's a regulation. Sometimes it's the private sector. And sometimes it's a mix of all four. Mike Bloomberg isn't a regular guy, doesn't drive a truck, and exudes the charisma of a blank Excel spreadsheet. And this year, one of the best mayors that New York has ever had came really close to losing. Why? He didn't play posture politics.

Posture politics is all about the message being sent, not the results being delivered. The message that Scott Brown sent was "No one is helping you, but you manage to get by. Why can't everyone make it on their own, the way you do?"

Massachusetts voters, and probably voters around the country, think the following: I can pay for my healthcare, and it costs a lot. Why shouldn't everyone bear my burden? When I screw up, I lose my job. Why don't politicians? When I owe more than I make, I have to cut my spending. Why does the government increase its spending? I work hard, pay high taxes, and I don't feel like I'm getting anything from it. But someone must be. Who's getting these handouts that I don't get?

In a lot of ways, this sentiment is understandable. It certainly resonates strongly with independent voters. Not only do independent voters feel like no one is helping them. They don't want to feel like anyone is helping them. They want to feel...independent.

This isn't governing. It's posturing. But I suspect that when neither party is offering a real way out of our current rut -- certainly no one believes that health care reform is going to turn the economy around -- the person who adopts this posture will win.

The key fact is, at this stage of the recession, with the Democrats having had a year to turn things around, no one believes that either party will improve our situation. So we're left with a certain kind of cynicism. The prevailing attitude is no longer hopefulness. Instead, the attitude is, "if it's gonna be tough for me, it better not be easy for anyone else."

Again, it's not a solution. It's a feeling. And in this race, Brown rode that feeling to the Senate.