Crying Wolf

    On Deep Space Nine, Doctor Bashir explains the fable of the boy who cried wolf to Garak, the Cardassian tailor/spy. 

    Garak asks:  "Are you sure that is the point, Doctor?"

    "Of course," concludes Bashir.  "What else could it be?"

    Garak retorts:  "That you should never tell the same lie twice."

     Time after time, Fox News reported that Hillary is about to be investigated or indicted for her email.  After a few dozen iterations of this nonsense, not even Republicans believed this would be the case.  Thus, when Comey tried their "November surprise" Mrs. Clinton, her numbers didn't move more than a percentage point, and snapped back before November 8th.  The only people still listening were those already voting Republican.  That's the thing about swiftboating.  It only works once or twice.

     Centrists were genuinely shocked by the election result.  Everyone outside that bubble knew this would be a toss-up because of the soft Democratic numbers (+5%) and frustration over Hillary's silence on Standing Rock.  Progressives had more than three months to recover from losing the nomination;  the general election was almost anticlimactic.

     Many Clintonians are still in denial, clinging to recounts, faithless electors and the popular vote.  Some are floating the foolish notion that Bernie Sanders wouldn't have fared any better against Trump.  Even after they disregard the numbers, these partisans say that three months of attacks on Bernie, with his positive numbers, would somehow add up to three decades of attacks on Hillary, with her historic negatives.

     Ultimately, Centrists would fall back on red-baiting, claiming that Democrats and Independents would not vote for a "socialist".  Here, again, we see the boy who cried wolf.  Right Wing Nutjobs have called Democrats, including Obama and Hillary, "pinkos" for years.  Now that they'd be faced with an actual social democrat, who would bother to listen?

The Koan of Silence

 koan:  noun, Origin:  Japanese

- a nonsensical or paradoxical question to a student for which an answer is demanded, the stress of meditation on the question often being illuminating.

Dangerous ones, we'd wager.

      2016 brought a phenomenon never seen in politics before:  a party turned down 34--originally 40!--hours of free prime time television exposure for its candidates.  That's worth more than the gross domestic product of some countries.  This will leave generations of Political Science students wondering how a party can hope to get its message out without...you know...getting its message out. 

      For the favored candidate, interviews were few and friendly.  With rare exceptions, debate questions were fluff.  Previously Democratic web sites prohibited opinions from progressives.  November 8th came with little or no word from the Democratic nominee on the death penalty, a federally mandated minimum wage, marijuana legalization, K2College tuition, Henry Kissinger, Iraq, David Brock, Standing Rock, and myriad other key issues (none involving emails or Benghazi).

      For the other competitor, invitations were rare and the only question asked was "When are you going to withdraw?"  The sole factoid not kept secret was the superdelegate total.

      To no one's surprise the spotlight moved to and remained with the Republican nominee.  Most amazing of all was that so many were shocked when this koan of silence strategy backfired.

      The most lasting and disastrous effect of the koan of silence is that Centrists still have no idea why Progressives were so reluctant to vote for Hillary Clinton.  [HINT:  It had nothing to do with Comey, Russia, Wikileaks or emails.]