House of Eratosthenes

Somewhere in the archives, and I’m too lazy to try to figure out which archives I’m talking about let alone go digging through them, I came up with some other name for the theory that goes with this. Or maybe I just took note that the theory needed a name, since it doesn’t have one, and it’s important. The theory is that if you line up the potential nominees of the party not in power and sequence them according to their approval ratings in the polls, you are looking at the sequence of their likelihood for beating the incumbent. In this case, Barack Obama. If the polls say the sequence is Romney, Huckabee, Trump, Palin, Paul then the likelihood of sending Obama packing is Romney, Huckabee, Trump, Palin and Paul.

I think the theory needs a name because, just to be clear, I think it deserves a beatdown it’s only going to get if it has a name. I don’t believe in this theory and I think the wrong people believing in it at the wrong time has done our nation incalculable damage.

The most successful conservative Presidents — there haven’t been many — were not nominees of least resistance. They were, overall, nominees of greatest resistance, in other words, whose nomination was prologue and/or epilogue to a contentious fight. Actually, I think that might be true of both parties. If you’re a liberal democrat, and your loyalty is to the liberal agenda rather than to your country, you’d have to look at Barack Obama as quite a decent President. He’s getting a lot of things done for the party, isn’t He? And His nomination, lest it be forgotten, came at the conclusion of a bruiser of a fight. If our media were more inclined to discuss things unflattering to the liberal establishment, it might even have been an embarrassment.

The conservative movement, on the other hand, has no need for a nominee of least resistance. In fact, its need for rejecting such candidates has never been greater.

Update: Another thought. This is much bigger than politics, by which I mean bigger than Republican/democrat electoral politics. It pertains to business as well; anything with an organization.

To actually nominate a nominee-of-least-resistance, is to say nothing. That is the primary asset and that is the primary liability. There are some situations and issues, to be clear, where this might be a smart way to go. Sometimes you want to obfuscate. I might buy that this is always sneaky and a bit underhanded, but I can’t buy that it’s always dumb.

The Presidential election of 2012 is not one of these situations. The message that resonates once the nominee is nominated, needs to be crystal clear, reverberating, penetrating, even shattering.

We tried it the other way two and a half years ago. Can’t afford anymore of this.

Update: In any medium in which every position conceivable is guaranteed to meet with its opposite somewhere, clarity guarantees a fight, and lack of clarity provides strong assurance of avoiding a fight. I think most people get this — to such an extent that clear people, just by being clear, are seen as spoiling for a fight even if all they’re trying to do is be clear.

And unclear people are seen as trying to avoid a fight…which is very often the case. But then, this opacity is seen as synonymous with maturity. Big, big mistake; huge mistake. Because now you’re providing an incentive for people to be unclear, and the surest career path for people who are practiced at being unclear. Now, who’s that going to be? You think that’ll be someone you’d like watching your house while you go on vacation?

This whole situation is so well defined, you can express it as a mathematical equation.

Anticipated Resistance + Obfuscation = k

to such an extent that clear people, just by being clear, are seen as spoiling for a fight even if all they’re trying to do is be clear.

Tell it to Jeff Goldstein! But as I often say, the truth is tedious. In our instantly gratifying climate, it’s already a negative if we have to dig for something or hold onto a thought long enough to get it to adhere to the next step of logic or provenance. Simple minds see the attempt, which at times has to be stern, as an indictment of their grasp on things. Which it is. However, the perpetrator of truth is often merely passionate for Truth’s sake and the force of that is often felt by the obtuse or opaque as threatening. And it is.

Hmm. Facing it like that, yeah, the truth usually does cause trouble.
- JoanOfArgghh | 04/17/2011 @ 18:58

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

“Nominee of Least Resistance”Sunday, April 17th, 2011

“Nominee of Least Resistance”
Sunday, April 17th, 2011