Thursday, August 21, 2014

Race Card Tactics -- and Strategy

Nobody doubts that the tactics of the race card is effective.  Jump on a white-on-black incident and exploit it to the skies.  African Americans get outraged and whites get surly.

Yeah, but what about Hispanics?  Anybody checked on them lately?

Never mind about tactics; what about race-card strategy?

I am thinking about this because I am reading Alexander Hamilton: A Life by Willard Sterne Randall.  We are up to 1780, just before the campaign of 1781 and the surrender at Yorktown.  The point is that tactically, the Revolutionaries sucked.  They fumbled and bumbled through most of the battles.  In the middle of it all in the winter at Valley Forge, Col. Hamilton rewrote the army training manual -- a kid from St. Croix -- and he helped Steuben retrain the army using a simplified quickie course that they'd cooked up together.

Tactics, scmactics.  In the end, the Brits lost because they bumbled the strategy; they got distracted by the entry of the French on the revolutionary side, and retreated from Philadelphia in 1778.

But nobody could tell in 1778 that the Brits had made a fatal strategic error.  They were all playing politics and blaming people and challenging each other to duels, and trying to get in with the rich babes.

Fast forward to today and the Dems' race card.  How's that race card turning out, strategically?  I'd say, not so well.

Because I'd say that the stumbling and bumbling over Ferguson, as over the Zimmerman case and the Duke lacrosse case and the stupid O.J. case...

Hey!  What do you remember most about the Rodney King case: the cops beating Rodney King or the rioters dragging white truck driver out of his truck and beating him?

If I were a black voter right now I'd be as angry as can be, but I'd still be hearing a still small voice in my head channeling Hillary Clinton: "What difference, at this point, does it make?"

What's the point of electing a black president if nothing gets better?  What's the point of all this demonstrating if nothing changes?

Let's switch to longshoreman Eric Hoffer in The Ordeal of Change.  He writes about the ephemeral nature of enthusiasm.  Hence enthusiasm is "unserviceable for the long haul."
The attempt to keep people enthusiastic once they have ceased to believe is productive of the most pernicious consequences... The Communists started out with faith and extravagant hope, then passed to pride and hatred, and finally settled on fear.  The use of Terror to evoke enthusiasm was one of Stalin's most pernicious inventions.
It is telling, I think, that liberals these days find they have to resort to fear, using the IRS, using trumped-up prosecutions, using political correctness, using riots in the streets, using pressure groups to suppress heretical thoughts.

The problem with all politics and all government programs is that it begins in enthusiasm and talented activists.  But then the activists go on to their next gig and the programs and the government gets taken over by lifers.  And one thing the lifers don't want is renewed enthusiasm that would disturb their untroubled life of watching internet porn and counting the days until retirement.

(The same thing applies to the corporate world, of course.  Talented enthusiasts create a business startup and build it into a great corporation.  But then the lifers take over and when the market changes the lifers just don't have the talent or energy to adjust.  Time for a government bailout!)

Of course nobody knows what the future will bring.  But if you are like me you are constantly trying to peer through the noise of the day-to-day to try and discern the bigger picture.

Sometimes you mistake the bigger picture; sometimes there is no bigger picture, just sound and fury signifying nothing.  But usually there is more going on in the world than just the surface effects.

Yea.   Just what is the Democrats' long-term strategy on race?

No comments:

Post a Comment