But Now You Know

The search for truth in human action

Republican Leadership, Chosen via Affirmative Action?

I’ve been puzzled by the sudden, ridiculous, forced fascination the Liberal Republican/neocon leadership suddenly developed for Bobby Jindal

It reminds me of the invention of prefab heir apparent Barak Obama in 2004.

And, in that sense, it’s obvious that this is what they were trying to do, “create” a winner the way the Democrats did with Barak.

But why pick this guy? He’s really something of the worst of both worlds…from the most corrupt state government in the country, “moderate” in more or less the opposite way of actual Conservatism, for example a gross mismatch vs a Reagan or Paul. At the same time, definitely not neocon enough to be their dream guy to pimp. So why him?

Then it occurred to me…it has NOTHING to do with his politics, his (scant) supposed leadership in Louisiana, or any of that irrelevant stuff that only people who actually care would be concerned (approving or disapproving) with.

No, it’s when I was thinking about his real name, Piyush Jindal, and his status as the first “person of color” elected governor in Louisiana’s history, that it suddenly hit me:

He is Barak Obama Junior, just executed Hollywood-style.

The Liberal Republican leadership are attempting to learn a lesson from this past election…but they’re far too foolish and petty to learn any lesson that was actually present.

So they learned faux-lessons, focusing on trivial, collectivist things.

It reminds me of:

Hollywood’s Response to a Blockbuster Movie

In reality, the lesson of the blockbuster is usually something like “This movie came up with an idea that hadn’t been beaten to death, and/or presented it in an original way” or “it actually stuck to the book, didn’t talk down to the audience, nor follow the normal Hollywood formula”.

But Hollywood doesn’t EVER learn those particular lessons. Instead, they pick some obvious cosmetic detail, like “this movie had two cops in it, who are buddies”, and for the next few years every second movie out of Hollywood is a Cop Buddy Movie.

Likewise, there were two sets of lessons to learn from Obama’s win…the substantial, and the superficial:


  • He appeared honest (compared to McCain and Bush)
  • As an extension of that, he appeared open, not secretive. The biggest impact on his lead, outside of Palin, came from the neocon pretense that they knew of dangerous Obama secrets
  • He opposed our self-destructive, hypocritical foreign policies
  • He appears to oppose the neocon police state
  • He ran a Reaganesque campaign (not platform) of communicating clearly to people, not talking down to them or playing stupid
  • Related to that, he has charisma/personality and communication skills that allowed him to be fast-tracked, a-la Kennedy or (against the Liberal Republicans’ own efforts) Reagan
  • He appeared, if only because he is new and therefore lacked opportunity to mess up or get caught, to lack the baggage and corruption of 99% of the leadership of either party
  • As an extension of that, he lacked “political experience”, which rational Americans recognize to be a bonus. Political experience plus success equals corruption
  • As an extension of THAT, he is not a 500 year old, corrupt bureaucrat with no understanding of real human beings
  • He really did appear to represent change, insofar as (on the two-dimensional Establishment spectrum) he was the antithesis of the neocons
  • The Republican challenger was Liberal, unable to attack Obama on his real weakness; the issues, without it simply being turned back around on him as “but you used to say the same thing”, so he was limited to negative, personal attacks against Obama, discrediting himself.


  • He was a Person of Color
  • He had a bizarre foreign-sounding name
  • He is young(er)
  • He was politically inexperienced, presumably easy to handle by the people behind the scenes and in the smoke-filled rooms
  • He was fast-tracked to the forefront by people who “created” his success, a One-man Political Boy Band[TM]
  • He appealed to his base

So, what is Jindal?

  • He is a person of color
  • He has a (half-concealed) bizarre foreign-sounding name
  • He is young(er)
  • He is politically backwoods, presumably easy to handle by the people behind the scenes and in the smoke-filled rooms
  • He is being fast-tracked to the forefront, by people who are trying to force his success.
  • He is adamantly pro-life, which supposedly is all that’s required to appeal to the Republican base

Jindal, in fact, has NONE of Barak’s winning traits, but all of his superficial ones.

They took away the Hollywood lessons, not the real ones.

Not a surprise, considering that Hollywood, too, is superficial and Liberal.

In fact, really, this could be anticipated by their choice of VP.

Palin was:

  • A woman
  • She was from somewhere exotic
  • She was young(ish)
  • She was VERY politically backward and inexperienced, almost as much as Barak himself, presumably easy to handle
  • She was teleported to the forefront by people who anointed her with instant success
  • She was quite folksy, and unlike McCain, was clearly pro-life

Ultimately, this seems to be the new trend among the Nixonian leadership of the Republican party:

Ignore all of the things they’ve done wrong so far, but try to imitate even more of the Liberal Democrats’ formula, without even understanding that.

Their failure to “get it”, even after McCain lost because he and Bush were too Liberal, is hardly surprising. I mean, McCain said he wanted “more affirmative action”.


November 18, 2008 Posted by | Politics | 1 Comment


%d bloggers like this: