Giving paid speeches to Tea Party crowds isn't entering the debate, and if some of you can't see how this silly waffling by Palin is turning some people off to her as a candidate, then I question your political acumen and instincts.
Alright, lets think about the revolutionary war. The Brits marched openly in row after row of redcoats. The colonials shot at will from behind every rock and tree and bush. Was it fair? No. Was it effective? You betcha. They did what they had to do to win, given their limited resources.
Likewise, Palin, whatever else you may think of her, has a remarkable intuition for game theory. She knows what the objective is, what the barriers are to reaching that objective, and most importantly, how she can best play the limited cards she’s been dealt to get past those barriers and reach the objective. If you watch everything she is doing from that perspective, there is nothing disingenuous about her behavior at all.
With that in mind, lets look at the “game" she is attempting to win (BTW, entrepreneurs take note, this might make a fun computer simulation):
The objective? Become President.
The Barriers? There are many possible barriers, so I will list only those that I think make my case:
The first of these is money. She doesn’t have the natural wealth of Romney, or the good old boy access to wealth of Perry, but she does have a remarkable and unique opportunity to earn what she needs to do what she wants to do. So that’s what she does. But not so as to interfere with gaining the objective. Did you know she turned down a second season of her Alaska show, forfeiting about 10 Million dollars, so she would be free to pursue her political objectives? Be honest with yourself. If her game is just money, for herself, why walk away from that? It makes no sense, unless the objective is not money.
The second of these is name recognition. No action necessary here, other than periodic maintenance, to prevent a falloff. You know, nothing over the top, just an occasional public appearance, do some bus tours, do some voiceovers on Fox, etc. Sound familiar?
The third is thought leadership. Reagan crushed Carter, not because he was eloquent, or because he was a tough guy, but because he understood conservatism well enough to set the terms of the debate, thereby showing up his opponents as followers, not leaders. True thought leadership is no longer coming from the left. Their whole movement is a form of denial wrapped around the death spiral going on within their ideological core.
But the GOP has been playing defense for so long they have allowed themselves to become entangled in that death spiral. Palin understands this, and is offering, through those venues you find so un-candidate-like (Tea Party speeches, Facebook posts, etc.), real thought leadership, which is why she’s begun to get attention from outside the camp of the usual faithful. And while it may seem unfair to you, all she is really doing is firing from behind good cover, and as any good modern soldier will tell you that’s way better that premature exposure to enemy fire. She will not be able to keep that up once she declares, so she needed to mow down a few rows of redcoats just to give herself and her leading edge ideas a chance to survive on the open field, when that time does finally come. Not fair, but effective, and this is war.
I also don't like her stringing along the base, and basically causing divisions in that base, by playing some “will I or won't I” game
There are only a relative few in the base who are really unable to take her at her word and imagine that she is taunting them. I deem it a kind of unconscious projection of adolescent impatience, a willful rejection of the clear expression of her intention to remain steadfastly ambiguous until it was to her tactical advantage to remove the ambiguity.
If she believes that Obama must be defeated, then she should give up her media job, enter the debates, and tell the GOP base why she is the woman to defeat Obama and get America back on track.
Should she do that in a manner that actually defeats her game objective? If she gave up a serious tactical advantage prematurely, just because a few whiners wanted to see her in the race sooner than later, couldn’t you correctly charge she was not a good tactician, and therefore unworthy to lead?
if some of you can't see how this silly waffling by Palin is turning some people off to her as a candidate, then I question your political acumen and instincts.
Yawn. As I’ve pointed out above. She’s not waffling at all. We’re just squirming with impatience. She clearly has her eyes on the prize and is being very disciplined in executing her plan, some of which requires a calculated ambiguity.
As for my own “political acumen,” I am pleased you thought I had any to begin with. I don’t try to do anything fancy, but I just try be honest about what I am observing. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. I have found that life goes on even when I’m wrong. So I try to avoid making unnecessary enemies among those with whom I really have a great deal in common, because to beat our real enemies, at some point we will need to pull together. Please accept this voluminous response in that spirit.
Peace,
SR
Why?