Imagine you had to give literally hundreds of appearances, many with speeches, on a regular basis during campaign season. Think you'd give equal quality performances every time?
Now imagine that your bottom 2% of performances got tremendous airplay by a hostile media and your better performances got nearly zero. Think you could be made to look less competent, or like Dan Quayle was portrayed?
This is the daily reality for any non-Cathedral politician, or even one who is on the outer edge of 'respectability'.
Compound this with the brute fact that any politician that is even vaguely on the side of the general population has to speak in serious code---a gaffe is when you inadvertently speak something that is too true.
For example, here are a number of high life priorities for vast numbers of Republican-leaning, conservative-minded voters:
-- They want to be able to continue to live in their suburban communities where they've put down roots without being driven by demographic change to the exurbs.
-- They want to be able to send all their children to the local public school, which will be culturally dominated by the children of people like themselves
-- They want their children to be able to get into State U.
Is this too much to ask?
I'd add that they want immigration radically reduced and want steps taken to ensure that they retain demographic hegemony into the future, but Sailer is pretty much spot on insofar as the desires of the ordinary white American are concerned.
But any politician who speaks this honestly is crucified in the MSM. So the challenge is how to communicate support for this in a manner that is plausibly deniable but which provides assurance that the communicator will not 'grow in office' (read, betray his constituency).
Are people really getting smarter?
3 days ago
Post a Comment