Have you ever been in a fistfight? As an adult? Not one of those "I got drunk and had a tiff with my friend that our friends broke up after a few shoves" fight. I'm talking about a fight where you honestly felt that your life may have been in jeopardy. I'm talking about a fight where teeth are lost and bones are broken. I'm talking about a serious life or death street fight.
How about boxing? How about martial arts? While not as serious as a street fight (or a bar fight) as far as life or death goes, there's still the possibility of your demise.
A fist fight, be it in the street or in the ring, is the ultimate test of strategy. Every wrong move made is countered instantly with pain. Every correct move is a reward, because you cause pain to your opponent. In a physical confrontation, you get instant feedback. It may sound barbaric to some of you, but it's life.
No matter what kind of fight you're in, there are rules:
1. Don't fight if you don't have to.
2. Don't fight someone you know you cannot beat.
3. If you find yourself in a fight you cannot win, cheat.
4. If you're fighting someone below your skill level, end the fight as quickly as possible.
5. If you have advance knowledge of your opponent, study him.
6. If you don't know your opponent, don't underestimate him. Take it slowly, and stay focused.
7. Never, ever, ever overestimate yourself.
Each fight has it's own strategy. Obviously, the more familiar you are with your opponent, the better shape you're in. Watch what he does. Learn his tendencies. Know his weaknesses. When there is no familiarity, stand back for a minute. Deflect blows. Avoid bad positions. Keep your balance. Take mental notes. Obviously, strategy means nothing in a fight if you don't have the skills to test your strategy.
There are all sorts of strategy games, but my favorite test of strategy is US Electoral Politics.
Presidential politics is a street fight. It's a life or death situation. When was the last time you saw Walter Mondale? Michael Dukakis? Ross Perot? Bob Dole? Losing the fight doesn't always mean political death, but it always brings about a profound change. Al Gore, for instance. In the past, it was easier to come back and run again, but these days, it's a little different.
Understand, the election is a referendum on ideology. The candidate, for good and for ill, is the personification of his ideology. In these Rovian days, if you can make the election about a candidate, then all of his or her perceived personal failings become tied to that candidate's ideology. The more you concentrate on the candidate, then the election becomes referendum on the candidate rather than the ideology. This has a dual effect of destroying the candidate while simultaneously dismissing the ideology. An example:
Al Gore invented the internet. He's lying. He's a liar. Al Gore believes in global warming. Al Gore's a liar. Global warming is a lie. Al Gore is a Liberal. Liberals are liars.
See how easy that was? Want me to do it again?
John Kerry was in Vietnam. He hated the things he did in Vietnam. America sent him to Vietnam. He hates the things America asked him to do in Vietnam. John Kerry hates America. John Kerry is a Liberal. Liberals hate America.
Obviously, it's a bit more complex than that. It takes a lot of money and a lot of liars to make black into white. It takes endless repetitions that start as secretive whispers and eventually become "conventional wisdom." It takes bullying, and needs those who are being bullied to be frightened. Most of all, it requires a lie so incredible that people can't help but to believe it.
During the Democratic Primaries, Barack Obama was in a fight with Hillary Clinton. To many people, Hillary was beating up on Obama, and he was too weak to fight back. Hillary threw the kitchen sink at him. His response, at best, was perceived as tepid. This is because more Americans watch "Big Brother" than play chess.
I never learned how to play chess, but I understand the game. Like any test of strategy, you have to understand the goal(s) while staying 3 or more steps ahead of your opponent. Hillary may have won the battle of personal rhetoric, but she lost the war.
While she was throwing the kitchen sink, she never really thought about where it would land, regardless of whether or not it hit her target. In terms of a street fight, she ran into it, both arms flailing wildly, hoping for a lucky hit. That's not strategy, although many people think that it is. The Kitchen Sink "strategy" is actually "strategery."
Reality shows are lessons in expert strategery. I don't watch TV, except when I visit my family on Sundays. There is always a reality show on. Lately, they've all been addicted to "Big Brother," a game where people routinely fuck up their winning strategies over some personal bullshit. When called on that personal bullshit by a former ally, the accused often falls into the refrain of "It's not personal, it strategy. This is a game, and I'm trying to win," or some such nonsense. It's not strategy, it's strategery.
He beat Hillary by letting her make the election about him. At the start of the primary season, she was inevitable. When she saw there was competition, she panicked. Ideologically, there's not much daylight between the two. They were rivals, not opponents. She treated him like an opponent, and tarnished herself in the process. Had he treated her like she treated him, he would have faced a wide backlash. He understood this. He also understood that she was trying to bait him. He didn't fall for it. He understands strategy.
Fast forward to August. Obama has won his fight against Hillary, Bill, the GOP, the BBQ media, the PUMA's, and many of his own nervous supporters. Now, he must fight all the same people again, except you can exchange Hillary and Bill for John McCain.
John McCain's campaign claims to have watched the Obama/Hillary fight and learned how to beat Obama from Hillary's mistakes. It's interesting that they use the same strategy. First, they try to make the election about him, and not his ideas. Then, the Kitchen Sink.
Much like Hillary before him, McCain comes in arms flailing, hoping to get a lucky shot. Obama dodges when he can, and takes hits when he can't. When it's prudent, he gives a quick jab. For many of his supporters, that isn't good enough. Nevermind that it's August, and the general population isn't really paying attention. Nevermind that every McCain attack is more ridiculous than the last. Never mind that McCain is spending $10 million more than he's bringing in. Nevermind that the last thing America wants to see is an angry, indignant black man yelling at an old white man. Nevermind all that, let's panic instead.
While McCain has been telegraphing every move, Obama has been watching, waiting to strike when he could cause the most damage to his opponent while causing as little collateral damage as possible. McCain's been putting himself out on a limb, throwing punches that don't connect, while opening himself up to counter punches. Obama could play gotcha games, but what would be the point? Instead of gotcha's, we watch McCain dig himself deeper into a hole, thinking that he's safe. He's free to contradict himself, change positions, and lie about it. While he's doing that, all of this is going into the record.
Obama's strategy is simple. It starts with a single idea: People don't know the real John McCain. Let him put himself on the record. Let him define himself. You might think that's dangerous, and in many cases, I would agree. John McCain is a special case. John McCain is not the same as he was when he faced off against Bush in 2000. At least then, he had some core principles. Over the last 8 years, he's kissed the rings and asses of the people he used to despise.
McCain was never a maverick. He was a guy who wasn't an extremist, but made some questionable calls, all while spinning himself as a moderate. He is a guy who, while still not an extremist, is more than willing to spout extremist rhetoric, and still try to spin himself as a moderate. The extremist rhetoric scares the moderates, and the moderate rhetoric angers the extremists.
Obama is smart enough to know that there are people who would never vote for him. The challenge is to get the votes of the people who can vote either way. So, he let McCain tie himself closer to extremist right-wing ideology. He let McCain sing a the praises of BushCo.
Then, on August 28, 2008, Barack Obama fired his first salvo. He didn't cause a fatal wound, but he seriously damaged the right-wing ideology, and by implication, John McCain. This is a reversal of the Rove doctrine on a level that will fly above the heads of most observers. An example:
Modern conservatism is wrong. John McCain is an honorable man. John McCain is a modern conservative. John McCain is an honorable man, but he's wrong.See the difference? He doesn't make McCain out to be something other than an honorable American patriot who loves his country, but is doing the wrong thing for the right reason.
"He just doesn't know."
"He just doesn't get it."
Now that we've seen Obama throw some excellent punches without putting himself at risk, I hope we'll see less of the concern trolling recently put out by weak kneed, weak willed progressives. I hope they can now begin to understand that strategy is better than strategery. I hope we all spend a little less time watching "Big Brother," and more time learning how to play chess.
I know I will.
No comments:
Post a Comment