I'm not fond of this rockstar political strategist thing. I hope this is a short lived phenomenon. Thank God that the same elements of our modern life, the internet and 24 hour news, also show the machiavellian trap modern political strategist have inflicted upon politics.
You have got to love the Groucho Marx style accidental comedy of, "what ever it is, we're against it". That is only outdone by unapologetic voluntary pawns that constantly shift “values” and are incapable, or unwilling, to express an independent, thoughtful, view of anything.
Candidates and strategists have lost sight of the proper limited advisory roll they, strategists, must be confined to in order to keep a moral compass at the heart of a candidacy. Candidate must constantly ask, "does this fit with my values or does it solely serve as an expedient and amoral means to a desired possible outcome?"
My flawed vision of a political party utopia is one that more regularly hashes out the values of the party and the positions held on issues. Of the founders’ debates that continued after the constitution was ratified, what of the elements of the conflicts debated by Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin, etc. do we champion as our priorities? How does Lincoln, TR, Wilson, FDR, etc. influence the positions? Of the complex and treacherous social issues, how do we acknowledge the complexities while still allowing for a general position to be taken - one that while acknowledging a range of positions, does not put us at risk of the same strategist folly?
I acknowledge this happens to some degree in the convention process but I really get the sense that it must be brought back to prominence. Perhaps it would put the US back in USA - truly the parties have more in common than is presently perceived by the electorate. There is a dire need to counter the amoral divisiveness of misguided strategists that get trapped by "the ends justify the means". EOM
Updated by Hualapai at Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 09:41 PM PDT
I hope this is now an easier read.