BreakPoint Blog
|
Eating our own Perhaps the best commentary I've read on Sarah Palin's decision not to run in 2012 comes from William A. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection. He writes: "It disgusts me that a candidate of such quality cannot run as a practical matter," but that "because of the political corruption of the media and establishment Republicans, who have been relentless in their attacks on her," it would have been a very, very difficult campaign with a lot to overcome. |
PRINT
RSS
Comments:
And it would help that you wouldn't be running for the first time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJXhXGE2CR0
(You could even get rid of the video problems, this go around.)
If I can just get that first attribute down I may run.
Of more interest to me, though, is the question of how one would go about transforming a robust two-party government into a single-party system. (Tom Friedman of the New York Times, and winner of multiple Pulitzer Prizes, has said this would be a good idea, since China is so much more efficient than the USA at implementing policies.) How would you do that? Certainly anyone knows that armed revolution is risky. No, better would be to take the long view, slowly build a base, and marginalize dissenters over time. And that would be best done with relentless propaganda, insisting that the opposition is stupid, and that any among them who are not stupid but are obviously smart are cruel and vicious.
The best part of this strategy is that it is entirely ad hominem - it's logically fallacious, but most people don't know that. So by using an illogical strategy, you can direct the ignorant masses 100% toward the person and 100% away from policies. So people will think Sarah Palin is an idiot even though she transformed an entire state. Just like they were told George W. Bush was an idiot. Well, I'd rather have an effective, benevolent idiot in office than a malevolent and/or ineffectual law professor.