House of Eratosthenes

After all the long weeks and months of monotony, something’s changing. I know I’m a lot less worried about who ends up being nominated; I’m much more worried about what the primary & general elections will be about.

If it’s a personality contest I’ll save you some time: Romney will flatten Newt, or Newt will trounce Romney. And then Obama will absolutely cream whichever one goes against Him. It’s silly to even wonder about it.

Why Republicans work so hard to wage battles they know they’re going to lose, I’ll never understand. When the elections are about ideas, they win. If this election is about ideas, they’ll win. Clue?

There are a lot of things going on that make me more and more concerned about this. Like this, for example; I struggle to remember any recent statement I’ve heard or read that is more stupid than “This is the biggest alpha dog battle of the campaign so far.” Stupid, that is, if your objective is to get rid of Obama. Not so stupid if you’re trying to get more people to watch the debate, I suppose…and therein lies the problem.

It won’t work on me. Newt will win, or Romney will win. I can learn to live with either one. Either one will win if the general election is about ideas. Either one will lose, hugely, if the general election is about personalities.

Republicans need to be very careful absorbing the learning experience that the country’s had. It certainly has had one. The lesson is that Obama’s ideas stink on ice. And hopefully, we’ll realize that this is generally true of most super-duper-popular-isn’t-He-just-wonderful teleprompter Guy Smiley types. If the idea’s wonderful, you don’t need the world’s most awesome idea-salesman for it, it’ll sell itself.

But there is a mindset out there that the learning experience is something else: Barack Obama just isn’t so charming, and someone with more charisma can be found somewhere else. That’s an illusion, and not even a very good one. It is very dangerous — it is Barack Obama’s best, surest hope for a second term.

I’ve also muttered something to the effect that I’m seriously considering joining the “Write In Sarah Palin” campaign, although I’m still not sure whether this is a reference to the primary or the general election. The people giving me a bunch of flak don’t seem to be sure of this question either, nor do they think it matters much. I’m a moron who’s about to throw away his vote and get Obama re-elected! And I reply…well I’m not sure if we’re talking about primaries here, but anyway, I’m in California. California is going to go for Obama. If I could unilaterally decide that California wants Palin to be the nominee it wouldn’t matter worth a hill o’ beans. And then they throw me some weird argument that seems to attempt to make the popular vote somehow relevant…which it isn’t…and if it was, and so-and-so lost but the margin was smaller because dissidents like me would fall into line and back Mittens or Newteley, that would somehow mean something. Which, of course, it wouldn’t…it’s really something to see, it’s like they’re getting confused by their own words in mid-sentence, and frustrated, so of course they take that out on me. Maybe I deserve it for saying something that got them so upset. But they can’t come up with a scenario that makes it matter.

I tell them, hey — if what you’re trying to say is, if such a campaign gets off the ground then nobody in a swing state like Ohio or Florida should join it — then I agree a hundred percent, yes you’re right. That doesn’t placate them too much.

I’m not sure how many people are thinking this way. I have the impression that it is a very popular way to think: Someone is going to get nominated, and everybody who wants to see Obama out should back that candidate and never mutter a single peep against him. Well, enthusiasm is important. I’ll go so far as to say, it’s more important than usual next year. Turnout is going to be very important. Turnout will probably decide the election.

But enthusiasm only matters so much. It isn’t everything. Even if enthusiasm decides the very last thing, it doesn’t start the first thing — it relies on other things. Look at Newt Gingrich, for example: His popularity surge has been historic, but each and every single time it’s happened, it took place after Newt took to the stage and skillfully and assertively articulated an idea. I don’t perceive any sentiment out there that could be summed up as “Just put Newt in charge of everything, he’s so awesome and his judgment is sound!” People like Newt after Newt makes the case about what he’s going to support, and why. Before he does this, people don’t like him so much.

In a contest against Barack Obama for general-personality-awesomeness, Newt will lose big. So will Romney.

But the ideas to be championed, are good ones. They sell themselves. People are good, people are worthy. If an economy thrives when people prosper, and we want our economy to thrive, we’ll have to make it easier for people to prosper. You should be able to defend your house against an intruder. Racial discrimination is wrong, in either direction. America will suffer an abundance of enemies and a shortage of friends, as long as it’s less hazardous and expensive to be our enemy than to be our friend.

Meanwhile, Obama is much more fun to watch than either one of those pasty white guys. Cuter, too. There’sJustSomethingAboutHimICan’tExplainIt!!!

Like I said: Why Republicans consistently try to engage battles they know they’re going to lose, I just don’t understand.

You absolutely sure it’s going to be Newt or Romney as far as the nominee?

A few months ago, Cain was looking pretty good, and Perry before that. Perry I am still backing, by the way. Don’t count him out yet, not unless he formally withdraws or is eliminated in the primaries. He’s more qualified to run on our ticket and to lead the country than the others put together, I think, including the two current front-runners.

I’ve never doubted your contention that the Democrats run on personality, and that the Republicans run on ideas. Or at least that elections are decided for the former when they do, and decided for the latter when *they* do. I just don’t get why the heads of our party don’t seem to have figured this out.
- cylarz | 12/08/2011 @ 12:26
Look at Newt Gingrich, for example: His popularity surge has been historic, but each and every single time it’s happened, it took place after Newt took to the stage and skillfully and assertively articulated an idea.

That right there is our best hope for a conservative president. Right now, we’re in a battle of Nots– the GOP is banking on the Not-Obama vote in the general, while the primaries right now are about Not-Romney (currently Newt, used to be Cain, for a brief shining moment it was Perry…). If a Not-Romney can make the case that he’s the best Not-Romney because he has X and Y idea that Romney doesn’t, we stand a chance. Otherwise we’re voting on who is the most “electable,” or most “managerial,” which is — as you note– nothing more than a personality contest that Republicans will by definition lose once we get to the general election (since, as we saw on the other side of the aisle in 2004, not too many folks turn out for the Not vote).

As for why Republicans engage in battles they know they’re going to lose… I think this is inherent in the political class. The kind of people who run campaigns aren’t idea guys; they’re technocrats. They apply procedural band-aids — they run some whiz-bang super-sophisticated poll, find out that their candidate trails by 14% with left-handed Hispanic polka enthusiasts in the Pacific Northwest, and then have him cut a tv spot where he’s speaking Spanish on a Seattle street corner while reeling off a mean accordion solo. They never even begin to consider the WHY of the situation.

[Oftentimes this works to our advantage, of course. Witness the left’s consistent befuddlement about the lower-middle-class voting GOP. It’s a complete mystery to them why the bitter clingers out in Jesusland won’t vote Democrat. After all, they’re the party of “the working man,” and their polls assure them that people in the $20-30K income range receive 38.52% of all federal subsidies, so…..]
- Severian | 12/08/2011 @ 12:31
For the internet to advance the rise of freedom and to straighten out our republic, there needs to be more bleed-over into current culture. The internet has made huge inroads with the young and the hip older folks. But, most have left its true benefits behind. Many open up facebook and that’s it. Many have five bookmarks, not 100, and they may not even know what a bookmark is. Penetration isn’t anywhere near what most online pundits believe, to their detriment.

The reason I’m making this point is twofold: one, I quickly tire of political punditry that never reaches beyond those who have the will, but no way, to affect the election. Points can be won or lost on complex arguments of principles and citations of intellectuals, but it means almost nothing to almost everyone else.

Secondly, BHO is so easy to deconstruct, it’s a real shame the elctorate is (and will) fall for his rhetorical BS again in a short period of time. The message to flow out of the blogosphere and into the mainstream, is strawman. Strawman, strawman, strawman. BHO does it better than anyone else, and that’s why he angers the blogosphere so completely, and also why he wins points with those who don’t see it. The anti-BHO bloggers know he’s settin’ ’em up and knockin’ ’em down, but the casual observer isn’t seeing it, and no one in the MSM is calling him on it, nor will they. Pundits need to coalesce around a very large meme like that, not get sidetracked attempting to put a new spin on every new event or situation. Individually, your points are all awesome, correct and collectively ineffective. He’ll win as long as no one (collectively) points out his largest flaw, and hammers it home time and time and time again. He’s actually getting more electable the more each minor event gets scrutinized, analyzed and undeservedly prioritized. He’s not Gulliver, but pundits are all acting like Lilliputans. I know no one pro-freedom blogger wants to act collectively – it’s not in their nature by definition. But, there’s a time for principles and then there’s now – not enough time to miss this one big thing, and without a collective agreement on BHO’s one largest flaw, you’ll have your principles and, what, exactly? You can continue to say “no one will point this out because it doesn’t fit the narrative!”, or you can agree on one large new narrative that actually reaches critical mass.

P.S. – I’m too lazy to check the spelling on Lilliputans. Sue me. I’m here to make a quick point, not to be graded like a student.
- wch | 12/08/2011 @ 15:10

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

“Something’s Changing…”Thursday, December 8th, 2011

“Something’s Changing…”
Thursday, December 8th, 2011