The empirics on beautiful women imply that, in a great many cases, a) they have their own agendas, b) they stick to those agendas, no matter what they may say in public, or no matter what "more experienced" men tell them to do, c) they are very good at fooling the men they associate with and they are used to thinking they can get away with it, and d) agendas are often more local and less global than you think. If you don’t believe me, read the final act of Henry V.
Andrew Sullivan is calling Sarah Palin "Rovian." Maybe, but her first order of business has been to fool the Republican establishment, not
the American people. (Read this silly AEI guy.) Her few genuine words on foreign policy indicate her positions are hardly the modern Republican norm. She is "unusual" on pot smoking and benefits for gays and juror nullification. The Republicans are underestimating her role as a Hegelian agent of world-historical change, just as the Democrats did at first.
Which narrative do you find more plausible?:
"Lovely Sarah, she’s saying and doing everything we want her to. What a quick learner. How pliable she is. Remember Descartes on tabula rasa?"
"Once John and I are elected, they’ll need me more than I need them."
The people who are right now the happiest may end up the most concerned. For better or worse, they’re about to lose control of their movement.