|
there has been a series of analytic articles in the ny times and elsewhere lately that talk about the lack of traction that republicans are getting for their pet issues, espoused by the range of potential candidates in the bizarre-o horserace that primary season has turned into. so i would expect to see alot of this kind of stuff--the fabrication that was repeated in the op, the gearing of the non-story around freaking out the gun people, constituency maintenance stuff.
keep the conservatives in line in a kind of pavlovian way while the party stumbles about trying to find an embodied message that will change its fortunes.
insofar as this kind of infotainment seems directed at conservatives, it seems to work.
two broader questions:
why are we paying attention to these campaigns this early? what is the function of the continual coverage of the primary primary?
doesn't it make sense to assume that every candidate is altering position, jockeying to find the memes that will enable them to generate an illusion of promise for real change while not freaking out folk by actually appearing to mean it. it seems to me that the republicans are doing the same thing--but there it's "adjustment" and amongst the democrats, its "flip flopping" or "vote whoring"
like i said, conservatives apparently really respond to negative stimulation.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|