Your humble Blog Goliard may not be a Brit, but in a pinch he can play one on TV. Or at least, he follows Anglosphere politics avidly enough to now and then roam about, playing at being Mark Steyn (with much the same beard, but vastly inferior knowledge of Broadway tunes).

This morning, it was a post on ConservativeHome that got the commenting juices flowing. The full article is short enough to read, but the gist is that some geniuses across the pond put together a report entitled “Future of Politics”, which dispenses advice on how politicos can “keep up with a new generation of ‘digital natives’”—largely by doing more stuff on the Internet, whether or not there is any real benefit in doing so.

And of course, it simply must be two-way, “interactive”, Web 2.0, [insert additional buzzwords here], because plain old websites have of course become completely passé and useless. So says everyone…particularly those folks over there, whom you may recognize from about fifteen minutes ago, when they were grabbing you by the lapels to tell you that you needed to hire them to make a Web 1.0 website for you right now, because that was the Future. (It appears that the Future has become even less durable than Aldous Huxley feared.)

Anyhow, the ConservativeHome blogger reported on the new document with some thoughtful criticism, but not nearly enough to suit this reader…or to ward off some silly follow-on comments welcoming the coming age of interactive Prime Minister’s Questions and Internet-based plebiscitary democracy. So yours truly chimed in to say:

What a damn fool bit of starry-eyed technobabble.

There’s almost too many points to be made here for one to sort out.

1) That graphic tells you more than it means to. It portrays technology being used, not to bring the House information necessary for informed debate, but rather the 24-hour news channel simulacrum of “information”. To wit: shallow visual flash. Fancy graphics, b-roll video, a mugshot of a person, outline maps…all of which are designed not to convey information, but to give ADD television viewers sufficient visual stimulus to prevent them changing the channel.

2) The digerati may think they have invented two-way conversations, but Alexander Graham Bell might have disagreed…as might anyone else who has ever engaged in that hopelessly outmoded exercise that involves standing in close proximity to another person and alternating between exercising one’s vocal cords and employing one’s ears.

And anyhow, meaningful two-way communication between MPs and the public will always be rare, whatever technology is employed, so long as: a) there are millions, not dozens, of Britons who would like to have their concerns heard and their questions answered…and only so many hours in a day; and b) one end of the conversation involves a politician who endeavours to say as little as possible while talking, whilst working in as many focus-grouped PR phrases as possible.

3) Even to the extent that a more involved and connected public is possible, that would first require an informed public capable of rational deliberation on the public good. How many of the people texting in their queries to be put to the Prime Minister will meet this requirement…especially if they are all ‘digital natives’?

Mitchell and Webb really deserve the last word here (the full skit can be found here):

What possible reason could there be for you to not email us? Certainly ignorance shouldn’t be a bar. You might not know anything about the issue, but I bet you reckon something. So why not tell us what you reckon? Let us enjoy the full majesty of your uniformed, ad hoc reckon by going to bbc.co.uk/meandmyimportantthoughts (all one word), clicking on ‘What I Reckon’ and simply beating on the keyboard with your fists or head.

One of the most important things Republicans will have to do, as they rebuild, is to explain why the last 20 years are not proof positive that Democratic administrations are better for the economy than Republican ones.

It will not do to simply count on the Obama years failing to bring recovery. It’s always a bad thing, on many levels, to find oneself rooting for bad news for political purposes; and also recall that, however bad things got after 1932, the Democrats successfully blamed Hoover for, what, 20? 30? 40 years?

The Carter vs. Reagan example won’t be much help, no matter how large it still looms in many of our minds. For the great mass of voters, that’s simply too far in the past to be part of the picture now.

Explaining that control of Congress is an important part of the picture, and getting into any number of other non-White House-centric macroeconomic arguments, will also be tough sells. Your humble Blog Goliard has long argued that as far as mid- to low-information voters (who are the overwhelming majority of swing voters) are concerned, our economic situation depends on who is President, pure and simple.

You’ll notice that Sen. Obama never had to offer much detail when he railed against the “failed Bush economic policies”. Swing voters didn’t need to know what policies those might be and why they were wrong. All they needed to know was: we have an economic crisis, and George W. Bush is President. So obviously, the former is caused by the latter doing it wrong. QED.

As mentioned in the post below, it’s almost as if they imagine there’s a master control panel in the White House, resembling the cockpit of a 747. If the President spends enough time at the controls, and operates all the buttons and dials and switches correctly, we have good economic times; if not, we risk recession. It all boils down to his dedication and skill at “running the economy”.

With persuadable voters bringing this half-formed mental picture to the table, all Democrats have to do is point to two President Bushes (three terms, three recessions, big deficits) and contrast to one President Clinton (two terms, no recessions, explosive stock market growth, budget brought under control). And poof there goes Republican standing on economic matters.

Unless Republicans can figure out how to put together an equally compelling counter-narrative, it’s going to be a long eight to twelve years. Because, again, hard times under Obama can’t be counted on to help. Messiah excesses notwithstanding, most Obama voters are already on board with the idea that that idiot-chimp-devil Bush—the worstest President ever!!!—did it so wrong that it may well take more than one term for even The One to get us out of the deep hole his predecessor dug.

So it’s time for the coaching carousel to crank up to full speed, as the silly season in college football—full of BCS arguments and regime-change agitation—gets underway.

As the old proverb goes, “A change in rulers is the joy of fools.” Silly season never fails to provide such joy.

Some of the latest rumors surround Tommy Tuberville at Auburn, whose ten-year tenure has seen five SEC West titles; and, from his second year forward, an average of nine wins a season. That’s nothing to sniff at. Yet this season was bad, so some Auburn folks are already in search of greener pastures.

How anyone can be confident that the team would fare better than that with a new coach, however, is beyond me. Especially when no one really knows whether your new hire would be the next Saban or the next Willingham. Heck, it’s hard enough sometimes to figure out how to gauge the guy who’s already in charge of your team.

Consider, Aubies: Not long ago, you were so desperate to keep Coach Tuberville you threw a huge buyout his way; now you’re desperate enough to consider paying it. Did he change that much between then and now? Or, perhaps, have you not seen him clearly on either occasion?

And how well equipped are any of us, really, to evaluate the job that a head coach is doing? It’s not like he’s the one on the field making the plays…or, in many cases, even calling the plays.

Your humble Blog Goliard had hoped that coacholatry was due to fade, but the roaring success so far of the Saban hire in Tuscaloosa has nixed that return to sanity. We’re right back to crediting or blaming everything on the head coach, seeing him as having the power to win national championships or utterly ruin a football program, all on his lonesome.

It’s as naïve as placing the entire credit or blame for the economy on the White House, as if there were a master control panel resembling a 747 right off the Oval Office.

No wonder monarchy seemed the natural and inevitable human condition for so many centuries.