From a Machiavellian perspective political Super PAC's are great. The politician knows who his Super PAC supporters are, and they do the dirty work. They are not constrained by federal limits on donations, or how they use the money. The PAC's seize the moment and attack potential rivals like a virus. Meanwhile, the political candidate, stands in front of the voters and says, “I am powerless to stop the Super Packs and what they are saying about my competition”. Invariably, an arms race develops when the other side creates their own super pack to retaliate. Eventually, you see mutual destruction rain down on both sides. The winner will be the candidate who has the most affluent friends who are engaged in his / her candidacy and are willing to invest early in the Super PAC. It is not simply the one who gets the fires with the first super pack. It is the combination of early arrival combined with the financial firepower to eviscerate their competition; simply stated, fire early and often with the intent of ruthless destruction.
Simply stated it is the survival of the fittest. First you destroy the immediate threat andthen go after the real competition. And while it all seems barbaric, it is a way of testing the candidate or leader to see if he or she has the internal fortitiude to stand up to the attack. In the case of the run for the Presidency, do we really want a candidate that falls apart at the accusations leveled against them from their competitors? Instead of being disgusted by the process lets look at at as the test that it is and see who is left standing.
ReplyDelete