§ ≡ A section of Preserve, Protect, and Defend: Faithfully Executing the Office of the President
{Section 4.4 « Section 4.5 » Section 4.6}
{link » T'Aint "Elitist" to Be Anti-Palin}
I am not, however, advocating a premise that our selection process, such as it is, makes sense, despite the great good fortune that made a Lincoln Presidency possible just when it mattered most for the survival of the Union. That fortuity was nothing short of millennial serendipity. Such is not a process that springs to mind for safeguarding a modern nation's survival, for it is indistinguishable from relying on magic. But the heart of Conservative activity, as I understand it, involves accepting the existing process along with the tools and resources at hand, and finding a candidate who has the best credentials to make a successful run on a platform of Conservative ideals. Please note that I didn't say "the best credentials for the Presidency itself".
Now we have arrived at a discussion of credentials for a successful Presidential campaign, and only hopefully the best credentials for a President, for they are not necessarily equivalent. You may actually have Lincoln incarnate at hand, but if you can't get him elected he is very unfortunately of no use. The devil, as they say, is in the details of the credentials, as well as in their proper prioritization. Not for nothing is it called a campaign — it relies on strategy and tactics, which in turn requires a very-well-studied and thorough understanding of the "enemy", which ironically is not so much the opposing Party's candidate as it is the electorate itself!
The success of a Presidential campaign requires the veritable subjugation of an electorate that is fickle, narcissistic, largely ignorant of global and national issues, ever more polarized and mean-spirited, under-educated, ungrateful, unworthy, uninterested in anything that has no bearing on the next handout and free ride, and basically stupid. And those are its good qualities. Now consider which candidate has managed to subjugate the electorate in Election 2008.
So what's a realist to do under these circumstances? I'm not sure. Part of me wants to believe that the best choice for the Presidency will also have the wherewithal to get herself elected. But I know that this is relying on too much serendipity. You just have to settle for a good enough choice for the Presidency but a better choice for a successful campaign. It's the stupid electorate, stupid.
{Section 4.4 « Section 4.5 » Section 4.6}
{link » T'Aint "Elitist" to Be Anti-Palin}
“The problem is that the reality of Sarah Palin does not match the idea of Sarah Palin. It's as plain as day -- glaringly obvious! -- that she's unfit for the job she's running for. We wouldn't expect the best darn regional car saleswoman to be appointed the next vice president of General Motors. We wouldn't fly in a commercial plane piloted by someone with a Cessna license because we trusted her gut. We wouldn't follow a woman into battle because she's a crack shot at moose hunting. Why is it unreasonable -- or snobbish! -- to have expected a better choice from our party for the next potential leader of the free world?”I submit that the problem of selecting a vice-presidential candidate is far from Ms. Crittenden's clearly-delineated basis of finding "a better choice for the next potential leader of the free world". The reality of American Presidential politics is, and has always been, that of finding and choosing a VP candidate whose expected contribution to a successful Presidential campaign would be optimal. Period. Furthermore, even the reality of our Presidential-selection politics is not about choosing a candidate who will best fit the job description for the highest office in the land — that of "The Triple Chief": Executive Officer of the Nation; Administrator of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government; and Commander of the Armed Forces of the United States of America. If "finding the best fit" were in fact the reality, then the greatest President this nation ever had or ever will have, would never even have been considered. Abraham Lincoln's political résumé comprised in its entirety a single term in the House of Representatives. He couldn't even manage re-election to his Congressional seat prior to his election to our highest office where he became the Presidential standard par excellence.
I am not, however, advocating a premise that our selection process, such as it is, makes sense, despite the great good fortune that made a Lincoln Presidency possible just when it mattered most for the survival of the Union. That fortuity was nothing short of millennial serendipity. Such is not a process that springs to mind for safeguarding a modern nation's survival, for it is indistinguishable from relying on magic. But the heart of Conservative activity, as I understand it, involves accepting the existing process along with the tools and resources at hand, and finding a candidate who has the best credentials to make a successful run on a platform of Conservative ideals. Please note that I didn't say "the best credentials for the Presidency itself".
Now we have arrived at a discussion of credentials for a successful Presidential campaign, and only hopefully the best credentials for a President, for they are not necessarily equivalent. You may actually have Lincoln incarnate at hand, but if you can't get him elected he is very unfortunately of no use. The devil, as they say, is in the details of the credentials, as well as in their proper prioritization. Not for nothing is it called a campaign — it relies on strategy and tactics, which in turn requires a very-well-studied and thorough understanding of the "enemy", which ironically is not so much the opposing Party's candidate as it is the electorate itself!
The success of a Presidential campaign requires the veritable subjugation of an electorate that is fickle, narcissistic, largely ignorant of global and national issues, ever more polarized and mean-spirited, under-educated, ungrateful, unworthy, uninterested in anything that has no bearing on the next handout and free ride, and basically stupid. And those are its good qualities. Now consider which candidate has managed to subjugate the electorate in Election 2008.
So what's a realist to do under these circumstances? I'm not sure. Part of me wants to believe that the best choice for the Presidency will also have the wherewithal to get herself elected. But I know that this is relying on too much serendipity. You just have to settle for a good enough choice for the Presidency but a better choice for a successful campaign. It's the stupid electorate, stupid.
No comments:
Post a Comment