The facts of my life are mostly good, so why should I be bitter? But p***ed off? Absolutely.

The political system grows daily further from the people. The importance of big money, the two-party system, a corporate media indifferent to all concerns but those of elites, the power of lobbyists, journalists who have no interests beyond the latest gossip and little knowledge of real issues, all conspire to make politics a function of elite interests, values and worldview. Indeed, I would argue that that's the point of the whole exercise - to insulate politics from the people. And the candidates are part of the system, so it follows that they carry the water for their superiors. You don't get to be a major presidential contender by bucking the system, which in practice means fealty to the liege lord, not the peasantry.

So while media stars like Gibson and Stephanopolous (sp?) ask insipid, demeaning questions in the latest "debate," neither Clinton nor Obama, if either gets elected, is going to make a whit's difference in the lot of common people. Bring the troops home? Don't you believe it. Cut defense spending so we can fund other worthwhile initiatives? Not even discussed. Single-payer health care? Nope. A reasonable policy toward Israel and Palestinians. Not that either.

I could go on indefinitely, but won't. The point is that politics in America is a sham - a pretense of relevance to the lives of ordinary Americans. So is it any surprise that the candidates show no familiarity whatsoever about what matters to most Americans? Is it shocking that the only question of importance in the "debate" involved the capital gains tax at a time when most people have seen their homes decline in value by half? No, it is neither shocking nor surprising; it's predictable as the sunrise. The system is of elites, by elites and for elites. Understand that, and nothing that happens is a surprise.

Does that make me bitter? You tell me.

with you when you say that Brooks and his ilk parrot this nonsense because they like it/think it's relevant, whatever. To get to the place Brooks is in the journalism world, you have to know how to satisfy editors and your superiors generally. That fact is true of just about every journalist on the national stage. Those are plum jobs and they don't hand them out to just anyone. People get those jobs because they know how the system works and that means pleasing editors and producers. And editors and producers need to please owners. What that means is that Brooks, et al learn very early in their careers how to please owners. Owners are not liberals or radicals; they're extremely wealthy conservatives who are quite willing to publish/air this stuff because it tends to promote the status quo. It's part of what Chomsky and Hermann described as manufacturing consent. There's great congruency between the values of the monied interests that pay K Street lobbyists and those which pay David Brooks. So politics and the "journalists" who cover it answer to the same bosses.

Who knows what David Brooks would be like if he weren't working inside that particular system? He may be a perfectly interesting guy. But as long as he works where he does, he has no choice but to try to convince people this stuff matters. My guess is that he long ago ceased to even notice what he was doing. I think it's despicable of course, but I can't agree that he does this because he likes it.

Glenn, your criticisms of the media are great, but I don't detect an overall theory, understanding or explanation of why this stuff happens. I urge you to think a bit more about the whys of the things you so rightly criticize. I assure you it's more than just a bunch of lazy slobs who can't do any better. Chomsky and Hermann are a good starting place.

and then buy as much real estate as you can. Prices will be lower than you've seen in a long time and yes, they'll go up again. It's a promise.

to read a feminist tut-tutting about the "mean streak" in American culture as if feminism hasn't contributed more than its share. And indeed it continues to do so. When will Broadsheet condemn feminism's false and hateful attacks on men which are undeniably part of the mean streak Lloyd pretends to abhor (no pun intended)?

that this recession will be anything like as bad as the Great one is nonsense. The recession of the thirties was preceeded by 10 years of productivity growth unknown before then or after. The 1920s saw productivity grow at an average of 5.3% per year. That's a record to say the least. The most recent 10 years have produced productivity growth of less than half that. It's no surprise that, after that record growth, inventories were stratospheric and prices and wages dropped.

Add to that the fact that government is much more active now than it was then at the job of redistributing income downward and it's clear that this recession will bear no resemblance to the one of the 1930s.