Politics: Handicapping the GOP
Political junkies know that it is still far too early in the race to handicap the U.S. Presidential election. November 2012 is still too far away. Grumbling on the Democratic side has been calling for a party challenge to Obama — if only to force the President into more solid positions. But, for right now at least, it is the GOP primary which has been the more interesting internal struggle.
The Republican Party stands a very real chance of running as an anti-Science party this year. And that is part of what makes the race interesting, for a number of reasons. Right now, Republican presidential candidates Jon Huntsman, Newt Gingrich & Mitt Romney are the ONLY Republican candidates calling on the party to pull back from its current anti-Science trend. Will the body politic of the party listen?
Right now, it doesn't look like it.
The Far-Far-Right extremist pull of "The Tea Party" contingent of Republicans are the main source of the increasingly anti-Science staunch stance being put forward. And foremost amongst those exerting this pull are Republican candidates Michelle Bachmann & Rick Perry.
And the mainstream establishment GOP party operatives do not like that pull one bit.
So there is a deep internal party division. (These usually do not bode well.)
But the GOP has been steering the ship so far to the Right for so long that "Centrist" within Republican terminology has lost its meaning relative to the general population of the country. What does it mean to be "a Republican Centrist"? And how can any Republican fight for the true middle of the country (where elections are won) with a now firmly empowered extreme wing which labels ANY move towards the true political center as "liberal" — translated as fighting words in Republican jargon.
In short, the radical extreme Right has taken control of the Republican Party.
And, unless the few remaining moderate Republicans can wrest away the helm of the party, the GOP will lose the general election.
IF the Democrats put up ANY kind of logical, rational & reasoned intelligent fight, that is. [An unknown factor.]
The problem is that we now live in a Post-Factual world.
What I mean by that is this: Facts — actual reality — actual statistics — that which can be proven & shown — Facts no longer make any difference.
Facts no longer make any difference in an election cycle.
And this is a BIG problem for American scientific empiricism. Empiricism is THE foundational American cultural belief: A belief that knowledge is based on experiment & observation, that is to say, observable & measurable FACTS.
In short: America is based on Science. We are an Enlightenment culture. That is where we come from. Those are our historic collective values. That is what we do best.
And yet FACTS no longer matter politically.
American mass-media propaganda has advanced to a level of subtlety & sophistication which human civilization has never before known. American propaganda is THE most sophisticated political art-form out there. Our advertising technique is unparalleled.
And in advertising & political propaganda — quite honestly — "facts" do not matter.
That is a sad thing for the scientifically inclined to realize.
And yet — politically? — it is true.
It does not matter WHAT I say — as long as I repeat it OFTEN enough & LOUD enough.
"Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass-destruction." • "Barack Obama was born in Kenya." • "Scientists think that man-made global warming is debatable." • These are LIES. They are untruths. They are falsehoods. And each of these statements was known to be factually wrong at the time they were issued & propagated.
And yet they were told VERY DELIBERATELY. For political gain.
And they were repeated & repeated & repeated & repeated & repeated so often that large segments of the American population believe them to be the truth. Not a single one of those statements IS true. But many voting Americans BELIEVE them to be true.
And therein lay the problem.
You can BELIEVE something all you want: But that does NOT make it true. I can BELIEVE in The Easter Bunny all I want — but that does not mean that a large white rabbit in a buttoned down best is going to secretly walk into my house on his hind legs one morning carrying a woven basket and hide hard-boiled eggs around my living room.
BELIEF DOES NOT MAKE SOMETHING TRUE.
And yet the entire art of American advertising & political propaganda is based on the FACT that — by repeating any one thing often enough — I can make you believe it.
"You need to go out and buy a new car." "You need to use a better underarm deodorant." "You need a new smart phone." "You need better cable TV service." "You need a breakfast cereal that will help you lose weight." "Israel can never be criticized." "You cannot talk to Cuba." "Iran is evil." "Corporations do not need to pay taxes." "Moving our manufacturing to China was entirely beneficial." "Cheap oil will last forever." "God is on our side." "Money is the measure of all things." "The Poor are poor because there is something wrong with them." "Homosexuals are the reason this country is falling apart." "Technology will save us." "The Right is right, the Left is wrong." "Surveillance will make you safer." "There is nothing wrong with privatizing the Government." "The Market is the best arbiter of all things."
These are the sorts of things that are repeated (ad nauseum) — often enough & with enough force — that large masses of people begin to BELIEVE that they are "the" truth. NONE of those thing necessarily are true. But if people BELIEVE them, then — in a propagandistic Post-Factual logic — what difference does it make?
And this is where Rick Perry & Michelle Bachmann come in.
Republicans Bachmann & Perry both deal in Sensationalism. Both say things more out of causing word-of-mouth "buzz". Both are dealing in the patently UNtrue.
The Republican political party establishment, however, has been trying to derail Michelle Bachmann — covertly — from the INSIDE of the party establishment for some time. The GOP establishment doesn't want Bachmann to be the nominee. [The "she can't be President because she has migraines" story came from INSIDE the Washington DC GOP party apparatus, for instance.]
Michelle Bachmann's advantage? [A] She's a woman; [B] She is a very telegenic & attractive; and [C] She's White, Ultra-Conservative & Christian — all hallmarks of the "just like me" Tea Party demographic & mentality. A Republican positioning of a White woman against (still "Black") Barack Obama presents the GOP with a very interesting strategic vantage point in the general election. Not pretty. But interesting.
Rick Perry? Rick Perry, on the other hand, has the same "White, Ultra-Conservative & Christian" appeal for the "just like me" Tea Party sector of the Republicans. But he has three other distinct political advantages over Bachmann — from a propagandistic point-of-view:
[A] Perry is MALE. This appeals to the core patriarchal values which make up the CORE of Republican Party appeal. People within the general population who gravitate towards strongly authoritative top-down patriarchal family figures tend to vote Republican. (Republicans tend to have father fixation.)
[B] Perry is playing with Mythos. He has taken on the Western "cowboy" model. NEVER underestimate the appeal of Myth. Myth short-circuits rational thinking. (And Perry certainly is displaying that.) Again… Myth is about BELIEF. And even though — in Reality — "The West" was closed and "became civilized" more than a century ago already — never underestimate the appeal within the American mind of "Wildness" & "Wilderness". Never underestimate the appeal of "The Wild West". If the "Frontier" can be transferred to "STAR TREK", Perry can transfer "The Wild West" to drought-stricken, impoverished & high-tech Texas.
[C] Perry bloviates. He is a skillful master of empty, pompous, overblown political rhetoric. That is to say… Perry talks. But he doesn't actually SAY anything. He skirts around issues. He never speaks DIRECTLY to an issue — he dances all around the edges of an issue — SUGGESTING something — without actually SAYING it. [Think: "It depends on what the meaning of 'it' is."] In other words: Rick Perry is the proverbial snake oil salesman. He does not say what he means. He suggests it.
Which, of course, blows a Republican candidate like Mitt Romney out of the water. The Far-Far-Right Tea Party dominant tilt of the Republican tilt at the moment makes a more moderate candidate like Mitt Romney look like a some kind of 1970s Radical Left Liberation Front person. And Newt Gingrich comes out of this Far-Far-Right tilt looking comparatively like a statesman of Winston Churchill's caliber.
Romney doesn't lie very well, though; and Romney doesn't bloviate. Romney doesn't talk out of his ass (like Perry & Bachmann do) (regularly).
Mitt Romney is probably the most viable candidate the Republicans have to for this election cycle. Unless the GOP can draft New Jersey Governor Chris Christie — who's Everyman appeal could go a lonnnnnnnnng way — and who could not buy the kind of publicity that "Irene"'s aftermath gave him. But, for right now, Mitt Romney is probably the most viable general election candidate the Republicans have.
But Romney cannot get traction because he does not SENSATIONALIZE!
And sensationalization is what makes for "good television".
And "good television" PR is what is shaping the race at this point in American politics.
Perry could have the effect of toughening Romney. IF Romney comes out of the box fighting.
But the WEIGHT of the Republican Party right now is "Tea Party". And that is an extremist form, no matter how you slice it. It is not representative of the vast American political center.
And the election will be decided by who persuades the middle.
At this point in the conversation?
I'd put my money on Perry for the GOP nomination, Obama for the general election.
