Articles

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

The 2008 Presidential Race Will be Run Against Political Correctness

The 2008 Presidential race promises to be among the more grueling in American history because regardless of who wins either the Democratic or Republican primaries, there is little doubt that the Republican nominee will not be competing against simply a candidate but against political correctness itself.

Regardless of any myth that the race will be run on issues, the Republican candidate will actually be running against the "Historic Opportunity to Elect America's First Black/Woman President". Right now Obama and Hillary are busy sparring to see who wins the PC Olympics that are the Democratic primaries, whether gender will trump race or race will trump gender. Among the press and the cultural elites, race has always trumped gender which is why the wave of Islamic rapes tends to get swept under the carpet and Islamic oppression of women is the subject of numerous apologetics.

But matters didn't go so smoothly with the voting public in New Hampshire which lacks the kind of bland population that could be browbeaten into voting for Obama out of some misguided sense of fair play, as happened in Iowa. Instead New Hampshire became the perfect place for Bill Clinton to once again cast Hillary as the victim of something or other while Hillary deployed the crying game. Of course that was only Phase 1 of the Clinton machine's tactics. Phase 2 depended on the willingness of Conservative and even Conservative Democrat talk show hosts to fall into the trap by supposedly kicking her while she was down, generating a torrent of sympathy for a woman who plausibly has actual blood on her hands but managed to put on a show of emotion in order to generate identification with her as a victim.

Hillary Clinton became New York State's Eva Peron by supposedly being victimized during her 2000 debate when her opponent extended something for her to sign. In New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton did her best to try and become America's Eva Peron by showing a carefully calculated spot of emotion in her otherwise artificial facade and it worked. New Hampshire though should be a wake up call to Republicans that they have been taking a victory against Hillary Clinton for granted.

Yes most of America hates Hillary Clinton but most New Yorkers hated her too and she's well into her second term as New York's Senator. Underestimating the Clinton machine is a bad idea because it is extremely ruthless and extremely adaptable. In New Hampshire, the Clinton camp reacted to the Iowa backlash that came when the Obama camp successfully painted her campaign as "negative", studied all the data that showed that voters saw her as robotic and cold and rather than trying to do a 180 degree turn, they set up a chance for her to show the "woman" within while staging sexist incidents like the "iron my shirt" moment. The program achieved its results and Clinton solidly carried the female vote that she had lost to Obama in Iowa. So of course Obama's camp responded by generation a Martin Luther King related controversy for Hillary Clinton on the next phase of the campaign and the PC war went on.

What Republicans now need to understand is that a Presidential race against Hillary Clinton will be one "iron my shirt" moment after another and a Presidential race against Obama will be full of MLK moments. It will be a fundamentally cynical race run on strictly PC principles. If the Republican candidate fails to say anything damaging, somewhere the Obama camp will arrange to have some racist graffiti scrawled and the Hillary camp will arrange for some more hecklers to stop by, all in the name of maintaining the perception that their candidate is part of a historic moment that will allow Americans to absolve themselves of prejudice by voting for an official victim. Both Obama and Hillary are too subtle to come right out and say it but that is the that will be played.

This is going to be a tough race and a difficult one. It's also going to require balance. Gender and race will allow Hillary and Obama to play specific roles that when weakened will quickly allow them to morph into victims. The Clinton machine in particular is adept at making even people who hate them feel sorry for them, as the impeachment disaster should remind anyone. Plenty of conservative pundits are salivating at the idea of going after the Clintons again but those same kind of tactics can quickly turn self-destructive because Hillary is not just Kerry or even Bill Clinton and neither is Obama. The cult of victimology has been bred into the American public for over a generation and it will be a factor even on the Republican side, whether we like it or not.

The hate that many in the Republican camp have for Hillary is a weakness and it is one that she knows quite well how to exploit. New Hampshire and the backlash against John Edwards and Chris Matthews for comments that were factually accurate but came off as "insensitive" should be a reminder of that. Not falling into that trap again is important because the electorate is more dissatisfied and uncertain than ever, which means it's also much more pliable and manipulatable. Republicans rightly think of Hillary Clinton of as the "Bad Guy", but New Hampshire is a demonstration of how easily her critics can become the "Bad Guys."

Obama and Hillary Clinton have not won races on their records. They have won because their opponents either dropped out or were forced out or self-destructed. The 2008 Presidential race will be a repeat of that. The power of a politically correct candidate is their ability to turn weakness into a strength, incompetence and inexperience into an advantage and hostility into sympathy and identification. PC candidates represent the ultimate political form of asymmetrical warfare and the conventional attack rhetoric of political campaign only deepens the identification with them as oppressed and disenfranchised by people and groups who themselves feel oppressed and disenfranchised.

Defeating a PC candidate in turn requires understanding that frontal attacks can and will backfire. It requires understanding the root of the identification and countering it at the source.

21 comments:

Keli Ata said...

What a pathetic state of affairs this country is in that people would vote for the candidate who is most flawed (or feigns victimhood) instead of strong candidates.

Obama's drug use, flip-flopping on his race and religion, Muslim ties to Hillary's defense of her cheating husband as a plot hatched by conservatives. It's as if the whole Monica Lewinsky thing never happened.

Not to mention the entire Vince Foster "suicide."

One thing can be sure, we'll hear plenty of We Shall Over Come at the Democratic Convention.

LemonLimeMoon said...

People don't vote for people they hate.
If a hated person wins, its called election fraud.

But in reality all the candidates running are not good.

No Apology said...

Frighteningly accurate analysis of the Left's Methodology of Morphing Victim-hood.

najistani said...

Any potential Woodrow Wilsons around?

The Third World War, like the first, will begin with some random spark setting off the European powder keg.

It could be a riot in France, an assassination in Holland or a bomb in Britain, provoking a local civil war which rapidly spreads and engulfs the continent.

The OPEC powers will then attempt to force the Europeans to capitulate to their Islamic hordes by applying an oil embargo.

But embargoes are blunt weapons that cut off the oil to everyone, including non-combatants. The U.S. will have little option other than to seize the Arabian and Iranian oilfields. This will provoke nuclear strikes by missiles or suitcase bombs already in place, with major cities in the U.S. being prime targets. It is less likely that the war-torn European cities will be nuked because of their high Muslim population.

There may also be nuclear attacks on India and almost certainly an attempt to obliterate Israel.

Russia and China will stay out of it until the time is right to intervene for their maximum benefit.

The New Centrist said...

"The Third World War, like the first, will begin with some random spark setting off the European powder keg."

I agree with Podhoretz. We are in the midst of WW4. WW3 was the Cold War.

USpace said...

Huckabee seems to want fundamentalism. It could never happen, even if Huckabilly really wanted to do it. I don't think he does, he just wants the votes from those who do. He's not stupid enough to want it or to try to do it as POTUS, he's just stupid enough to say it.

Huckleberry is too conservative on religion and too liberal on criminals and the economy and immigration.

Huckabye? Huckabee wants to have adulterers, homosexuals and rape victims stoned to death. He also wants to make alcohol and music videos illegal, and make women 2nd class citizens and to take all girls out of school.

Oops, my bad, that's another 'religion'.

Hey, anybody but the PIAPS!

if you’re MAD
punish your country
VOTE DhimmicRAT


http://haltterrorism.com/

http://absurdthoughtsaboutgod.blogspot.com
.

steve klein said...

Sultan, I have very little interest in the upcoming elections. I don't watch the debates. I read a piece by Dick Morris this morning about how the Republicans are suffering because we have no clear front-runner yet.

I doubt I will vote in the up coming Fla. primary. As you know, I am angry with my party because they have let Bush do these terrible things to Israel, notwithstanding Israel's traitorous prime ministers.

I'm sorry, I am an American and a thirty six year registered Republican. If I were an Israeli, I would be out in the streets protesting Olmert with the right. I am an American who is disgusted with this self-professed Christian president who is a phony.

I believe in Gen 12:3. Bush has cursed Abraham and the Republicans should suffer for it as well as the nation. I am not a religous Jew but I believe in the clear warnings of our prophets. Obviously Bush does not and neither do the vast majority of American Christians who purport to love Israel. It's all lip service.

Maybe the Almighty will have mercy on my party and this great nation in November 2008 but do we deserve it? Not really. No.

Sultan Knish said...

well the nation will get as bad as we choose to let it get

Bush's policies have turned destructive and I understand the bitterness many feel over it, but 8 years of Obama or Huckabee is not exactly going to improve the situation

even if we can't set things right, we can try to do our part to influence things for the better, for the sake of everyone in the country

maybe there's no perfect candidate, though I lean toward Giuliani, but there are clear evils and horrors looking to get into the oval office, whether it's obama, huckabee, hillary, ron paul, etc

the state of the world now and maybe for the forseeable future is likely to depend on this upcoming election

when good people do nothing, the arafats of the world win

steve klein said...

I haven't confirmed it. Professor Eugene Narrett, I believe, wrote that Giuliani now is on record supporting a Palestinian state. Maybe he wants the Saudis to support him after all?

I respect Giuliani for the things he did, refusing the $10 million dollar check at ground zero from the Saudi billionaire and snubbing Arafat but I expect more from my party than this nonsense. Palestinian terror state? How about Bush giving his ranch back to the Mexicans? Maybe Giuliani would support the Sioux Indian's quest for independence. Maybe Bush will carve out several states for a Native American state.

Naw.

God knows the Native Americans are much better (as US Supreme Court Justice Marshall put it in Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia) "subjects to the United States as wards to a guardian" than the Palestinian Muslims have been to Israel.

Good men sometimes don't feel like doing much when they speak the truth and are booted from their party.

I wrote a letter to the editor criticizing George W. Bush on his efforts to establish a Palestinian terror state in Israel, September 2004. Our Christian board member sought my removal from our Committee. This is emblematic of my party. Party and president come first, morals and ethics be damned.

steve klein said...

"This isn’t an Islamic problem. This is a jihadist problem," said Mike Huckabee recently. Rudolph Giuliani spoke of “the way they’ve perverted their religion into a hatred of us.” In that, both men are reflecting the conventional wisdom -- conventional wisdom which, if you dare to transgress, you become a pariah. Everyone, you see, knows that whatever it is we're facing around the world today, it has nothing to do with Islam. If you don't see that, you're just a bigoted "Islamophobe."

(Robert Spencer -- Jihad Watch)

steve klein said...

Sultan, what do you knoqw about John McCain on Israel?

http://www.jewishpress.com/displayContent_new.cfm?mode=a§ionid=1&contentid=17926&contentName=%3Ci%3EJewish%20Press%20Exclusive%20-%20%3C/i%3E%20McCain:%20'Proudly%20Pro-Israel'%20%20-%20%3Ci%3ESays%20Haaretz%20Article%20Left%20'Serious%20Misimpressions'%20%3C/i%3E

Sultan Knish said...

mccain tends to be a bit unpredictable, bottom line practical politics I expect means he will take the same bush/clinton line on israel as president

we support security but time to negotiate and make concessions for peace etc...

steve klein said...

I posted this (below) on our "Jewishviews" group-list after our moderator posted the link to Jewish Press. I believe the original story that McCain is now denying. I believe Haaretz quoted him accurately, saying he would ("unlike Bush?") micromanage the conflict. I wanted your opinion first:

"I don't swear by my memory. I seem to recall, several years back when I watched a lot of cable television, CNN, ABC, NBC, etc., later Fox News. I think it was the Bush I administration that was putting pressure on the Shamir government. It could have been another administration. I remember McCain interviewed saying that Israel needed to comply with administration demands. I don't remember what the demands were, but as we know they are almost always immoral and unfair. McCain stood out in my mind as another callous bully, like many in Washington. These kinds of things stick in my mind."

Sultan Knish said...

http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?BlogID=10749

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDE5NWYxYzBiYzUyNWE5YzkyNmMwN2I2MjUyNGYyMzU=

steve klein said...

Thanks. Does it bother me if McCain mentions the name of vicious anti-Semite John McCain?

I was not planning to vote next week in the Fla. primary or in the general election next November. Guess I might reconsider at least the primary.

steve klein said...

Spencer on the major presidential candidates and jihad (today, January 21, 2008)

http://jihadwatch.org/

Scroll down the page to third article or so.

No mention of McCain.

steve klein said...

Michael Medved. Is he on our side?

http://www.jewishreview.org/node/9720

Sultan Knish said...

medved is a party uber alles man

steve klein said...

Sultan, have you read Caroline Glick's latest column, "The audacity of truth," Jerusalem Post?

Sometimes I try to answer the more outrageous Talkbacks. This last one I think is wrong-headed. I'm not sure how to answer his analogy of the Slave-owning South to "libertine, Sabbath-violating Israel." I know for a fact, here in the south, many southerners are in denial, claiming the Civil War had absolutely nothing to do with slavery.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1200572509823&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

61. Ron Paul -- Shocking??
There's nothing shocking about Ron Paul's Nevada showing for a number of reasons. (1) Kirchick's report presents nothing new. Paul already acknowledged that his newsletters from the 1970's & early 1980's were ghost written and that he was negligent in not reviewing them. (2) People who've followed Paul's career know that he's no racist and that his sympathy for the Confederate cause has nothing to do with slavery...
Uri DeYoung - Samaria (01/23/2008 16:03)


62. To accuse him of harboring fondness for the "slave-owning South" is akin to accusing American Zionists of harboring a fondness for "Sabbath-desecrating, libertine Israel." One can be sympathize with a country and its ideals while acknowledging - and even denouncing - its shortcomings. Why are Jews so afraid of Ron Paul & small government?
Uri DeYoung - Samaria (01/23/2008 16:32)

Sultan Knish said...

it's garbage,

ron paul supporters tend to be dishonest and wear lots of guises, i've replied over there and i'll have a post on why zionists shouldn't vote for him next week

steve klein said...

I doubt Ron Paul supporters either frequent the J. Post or Caroline Glick. They are well-represented in the Talkbacks on this latest piece.

This Glick reader has it about right:

67. CAROLINE WELL DONE: YOU PUT THE CHEESE OUT AND THE RATS SHOWED UP ON CUE

Post a Comment