about regret

In January 2016, US presidential candidate Donald Trump famously boasted that he could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue (a major thoroughfare in Manhattan, New York City) and not lose any voters. Whatever one thinks of his phrasing, the realization he was expressing was powerful: he was a candidate who could take chances. His detractors should view Donald Trump as a missed opportunity rather than a political black swan.

about "Candide" by Voltaire

Candide is a novella by Enlightenment writer, historian, and philosopher Voltaire (1694–1778). The witty, outspoken Voltaire was often at odds with the laws, customs, and institutions of his day. Despite--or perhaps because of--his controversies, Voltaire achieved great fame in his lifetime.

First published in 1759, Candide unfolds the adventures of a naive but bright young man who optimistically emerges from an idyllic upbringing only to meet painfully with a world burdened with wrongs, hardships, and evils that invite his disillusionment.
 
Initially taught that "all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds," the young Candide concludes after contending with the problem of evil that, in life, one should "cultivate our garden." What this philosophical riddle means is much debated.

Voltaire is posing our dilemma: How do we respond faced with the problem of evil? Now, as adults, far, far away from any Garden of Eden, how do we approach the world? This absurd allegory encourages us to be clear-eyed, tireless reformers working toward the good. 

A good piece on Herman Cain asks, Why isn't he even more on the ropes?

Let's examine one of the author's conclusions in the enjoyable article "On the Ropes with Herman Cain" which appears this month in The New York Times Magazine.

The piece profiles the candidate with a critical eye, leaving the general impression that (1) this politician is flawed--seriously lacking, even, and (2) his campaign is unusually resilient. The resiliency point is well made except for this one high-profile example: "And in the first two national polls that were conducted after the sexual-harassment scandal broke, Cain was still looking strong, running right up at the top with Romney." This phenomenon isn't remarkable. While a scandal might pervade a campaign's coverage, it needn't necessarily hurt a candidate's approval. Just a recent example: Obama's numbers held steady through all the Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright talk that followed him in 2007.

A candidate's approval rating is damaged when the nature of his scandal threatens or challenges his base. For example: Democrats sick of George W. and the GOP in 2007 did not worry about Obama associating with mostly irrelevant Leftists. Likewise, today's Republicans, many of whom are suspicious of litigation and dismissive of feminists, don't care about old sexual harassment charges.

An event is only a scandal if it offends the values of your peers, and a speech act is only a gaffe if it draws their derision, thereby embarrassing you.

A separate point: I've read speculation that Cain intends not so much to win to the election, but rather to make himself a celebrity. This jibes with my old theory that elections would soon evolve into popularity contests between game show host-like candidates. But, should this happen, it would only be a temporary phase in the history of US electioneering. And, moreover, that campaigns and candidates are the essential form of PR isn't news.