There are days when I think we political bloggers are canaries in coal mines, providing early warning to our readers that the oxygen is running low and poisonous gases are on the rise.
Then there are days when I suspect we’re more like the boys and girls who cried wolf, afraid of the shadows of threats that aren’t there, or unconsciously making a topic sound worse than it is so we have something compelling to write about.
And then … there are days when I know we’re probably a little bit of both; half-canary, half-wolf-crier; a very odd beast, indeed.
What I don’t know is this: Regardless of our own canary-and-wolf-crying tendencies, how good or bad of a shape is this country really in? Is it severely, systemically broken or just slightly hobbled? Are the problems we observe just small blemishes on the otherwise radiant skin of a nation’s character?
I doubt any one of us can answer those type of categorical questions with any degree of reliability, although most assuredly, our respective “guts” push us in one direction or the other. And, depending on that direction, we’ll probably be inclined, in turn — as Andrew Sullivan suggests — to cast our primary and (if we’re given the choice) our general-election votes for either a pragmatic (minor-fixes) or transformative (major-overhaul) candidate.
Personally — despite all those times I’ve been a canary, or wolf-crier, or both — I probably lean more in the pragmatic (minor-fixes) direction.
And what about you?