I am still descanting on my lefty pal Michael Mann's summary dismissal of the leaders of the central powers before World War I. They suffered, he wrote, from a culture of "militarism." They thought that all real men resolved their disputes with a nice little war complete, I imagine, with flashy uniforms and glittering medals.
Yes, of course the emperors and the generals of the time were idiots. But they were just average guys doing the average thing that they learned in emperor school.
Now we today have a different problem. Instead of the reflexive culture of "militarism" in our political elites -- which you still see in vestigial form, e.g., with the British royal family whose men still dress up in military uniforms -- we have the culture of "activism." Today all people in the educated elite think that they solve problems with political activism and beneficial legislation and identity politics.
So 90 percent of your politicians and your activists and your media personalities and your academic experts are just consumers and producers of the conventional wisdom of the cult of "activism."
But that is normal; that is the way the world works.
What is interesting is the man that breaks the mold. Never mind the guy that inherits a corporation as CEO, or that inherits a monarchy when his dad dies. Never mind the Buggins Turn in the US Republican Party that always seems to nominate for president the guy that lost the nomination last time.
The interesting people are the successful startups: the Gateses, the Jobs, the Google guys. Because they invented something that wasn't there before. What about the Founders, from Washington to my man Hamilton, that invented a new form of government based on their reading of the Montesquieus and the Hobbses and their actual experience of fighting and winning a revolution?
And what about the folks running for president in our own time? Jack Kennedy? Pretty conventional guy that succeeded in convincing everyone he was a genius. Lyndon Johnson? A master political operator. Nixon? A conventional man of his time that managed to derail the left-leaning Democrats. Carter? Utterly conventional, but played beautifully to the liberal desire for a faux populist with a big smile. Reagan? A man that had done his reading, formulated a strategy, and successfully ran against his party's conventional wisdom and won. Bill Clinton? A political genius that managed to steer his party away from its knee-jerk liberalism. Bush, father and son? Both utterly conventional. Obama? Utterly conventional lefty, but made to seem like a genius. Hillary Clinton? Utterly conventional without an idea in her head.
Then we come to Trump who found the white working class wounded by the side of the road and decided to act like the Good Samaritan. The point about Trump is not that he is a genius, which he probably is, but that he was the first person after Reagan to see the political potential in the white working class and figure out how to appeal to it. Today his strategy looks obvious: make a populist appeal to the broad middle: Make America Great Again. Hey, I couldha come up with that! Only I didn't.
Here's what I wonder. I wonder how long it is going to take for the Democrats shake off their politically correct microaggression anti-hate conventional wisdom and actually figure out how to appeal to the broad middle of America like Bill Clinton did.
I think it will take a couple of election cycles, just like it did after Ronald Reagan got elected. I think that the Democrats will have to burn through a couple of diversity candidates, starting with Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) in 2020 who came up the old-fashioned way through the grace and favor of Willie Brown, before they decide to become New Democrats again and earnestly tell us that they have changed. No really!
Here's what I think. I think that at some point the women of America, the blacks of America, and the Latinos of America are going to find our that, despite what the Democrats tell them, they are really Americans first, and helpless victims second.
It only needs a political genius, that can wrap up the current educated elite's "activism" conventional wisdom in a paper bag and throw it in the dumpster, to figure this out and then America will be first-and-ten on the forty yard line.
I also think that Democrats will go through hell trying again and again to elect the First Woman President.
Here's my reasoning, which I can make because I am a sexist. I don't think that women are cut out for rejecting conventional wisdom, which is what it often takes to win a presidential election. More than boys, girls tend to be Good Little Girls that make their way in the world by following the rules and expectations. Hey, most men are like that too, but I suspect that there are more rebels in the ranks of men than in women, just as the IQ bell curve for men is flatter, with more men than women at the extremes.
I think that Margaret Thatcher is the exception that proves the rule. It took her ten years in the 1950s to find herself a parliamentary constituency. I think that she reinvented herself as a man in order to do it. Old videos of her speaking as Prime Minister in the House of Commons show how she learned to master the male Culture of Insult in the very masculine bear-garden of Parliament. Hillary Clinton was not that kind of woman. Nor, as far as I can tell, are any of the women senators on either side of the aisle.
Not to be militaristic about it, but a presidential candidate is trying out for the position of Warrior-in-Chief. He needs to present himself as a brave fighter. As Reagan did, as Trump did. And as Hillary Clinton did not.
Yes, of course the emperors and the generals of the time were idiots. But they were just average guys doing the average thing that they learned in emperor school.
Now we today have a different problem. Instead of the reflexive culture of "militarism" in our political elites -- which you still see in vestigial form, e.g., with the British royal family whose men still dress up in military uniforms -- we have the culture of "activism." Today all people in the educated elite think that they solve problems with political activism and beneficial legislation and identity politics.
So 90 percent of your politicians and your activists and your media personalities and your academic experts are just consumers and producers of the conventional wisdom of the cult of "activism."
But that is normal; that is the way the world works.
What is interesting is the man that breaks the mold. Never mind the guy that inherits a corporation as CEO, or that inherits a monarchy when his dad dies. Never mind the Buggins Turn in the US Republican Party that always seems to nominate for president the guy that lost the nomination last time.
The interesting people are the successful startups: the Gateses, the Jobs, the Google guys. Because they invented something that wasn't there before. What about the Founders, from Washington to my man Hamilton, that invented a new form of government based on their reading of the Montesquieus and the Hobbses and their actual experience of fighting and winning a revolution?
And what about the folks running for president in our own time? Jack Kennedy? Pretty conventional guy that succeeded in convincing everyone he was a genius. Lyndon Johnson? A master political operator. Nixon? A conventional man of his time that managed to derail the left-leaning Democrats. Carter? Utterly conventional, but played beautifully to the liberal desire for a faux populist with a big smile. Reagan? A man that had done his reading, formulated a strategy, and successfully ran against his party's conventional wisdom and won. Bill Clinton? A political genius that managed to steer his party away from its knee-jerk liberalism. Bush, father and son? Both utterly conventional. Obama? Utterly conventional lefty, but made to seem like a genius. Hillary Clinton? Utterly conventional without an idea in her head.
Then we come to Trump who found the white working class wounded by the side of the road and decided to act like the Good Samaritan. The point about Trump is not that he is a genius, which he probably is, but that he was the first person after Reagan to see the political potential in the white working class and figure out how to appeal to it. Today his strategy looks obvious: make a populist appeal to the broad middle: Make America Great Again. Hey, I couldha come up with that! Only I didn't.
Here's what I wonder. I wonder how long it is going to take for the Democrats shake off their politically correct microaggression anti-hate conventional wisdom and actually figure out how to appeal to the broad middle of America like Bill Clinton did.
I think it will take a couple of election cycles, just like it did after Ronald Reagan got elected. I think that the Democrats will have to burn through a couple of diversity candidates, starting with Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) in 2020 who came up the old-fashioned way through the grace and favor of Willie Brown, before they decide to become New Democrats again and earnestly tell us that they have changed. No really!
Here's what I think. I think that at some point the women of America, the blacks of America, and the Latinos of America are going to find our that, despite what the Democrats tell them, they are really Americans first, and helpless victims second.
It only needs a political genius, that can wrap up the current educated elite's "activism" conventional wisdom in a paper bag and throw it in the dumpster, to figure this out and then America will be first-and-ten on the forty yard line.
I also think that Democrats will go through hell trying again and again to elect the First Woman President.
Here's my reasoning, which I can make because I am a sexist. I don't think that women are cut out for rejecting conventional wisdom, which is what it often takes to win a presidential election. More than boys, girls tend to be Good Little Girls that make their way in the world by following the rules and expectations. Hey, most men are like that too, but I suspect that there are more rebels in the ranks of men than in women, just as the IQ bell curve for men is flatter, with more men than women at the extremes.
I think that Margaret Thatcher is the exception that proves the rule. It took her ten years in the 1950s to find herself a parliamentary constituency. I think that she reinvented herself as a man in order to do it. Old videos of her speaking as Prime Minister in the House of Commons show how she learned to master the male Culture of Insult in the very masculine bear-garden of Parliament. Hillary Clinton was not that kind of woman. Nor, as far as I can tell, are any of the women senators on either side of the aisle.
Not to be militaristic about it, but a presidential candidate is trying out for the position of Warrior-in-Chief. He needs to present himself as a brave fighter. As Reagan did, as Trump did. And as Hillary Clinton did not.
No comments:
Post a Comment