The gift (that keeps on giving)

Republicans are gifting Obama a second term. Polls show him trailing a generic Republican, but leading any actual Republican who will likely be nominated. This curiosity indicates that American voters want an alternative, but the Republicans are unable to deliver.

Why? It's the work of shrill voices subjecting Republican candidates to litmus tests of uncompromising conservatism while frothing about Obama's unsuitability. Radical conservatives, however, alienate mainstream voters and won't win nationally.

Obama has played the far-right superbly. Consider the 'birther' movement. Obama permitted whole segments of the Republican Party to commit to the belief that he wasn't born in America, with speculation abounding about his apparent inability to produce a United States birth certificate. After delaying and delaying, he suddenly released a certificate and sawed off the limb that so many had climbed on to.

All this made them look like a bunch of kooky conspiracy theorists. The whole thing is enjoyable to observe, but probably isn't the healthiest democratic dynamic. One side ought not to set itself up for obvious failure.

The loudest and shrillest voices are not usually the most persuasive, and, in fact, often send listeners in the other direction. The voters hear the obsessive hectoring, but don't listen to it. If the Tea Party and 'birthers' hadn't existed, Obama would have been wise to invent them.

Here, Wilmot Perkins has gone to the great microphone in the sky. He was the last of the great ideological campaigners of the '70s media landscape still in operation, and stood like a scarred gladiator now overseeing lesser battles in the arena. He deserves a warrior's respect, not sanctification.

In my own experience, his loud disapproval was a not-unpleasant early gift of rescue from complete irrelevance. I had said he suffered from mental deficiencies ('Perkinson's disease'). He christened me 'The Puppy Deacon' to the amusement of my friends. Haw, haw, haw, haw!

I'm told of his 1970s exploits, but it was in the 1990s that I tuned in to his misshapen talent. He was combative, controversial and, best of all, contrarian. On social and rights issues, I appreciated him for occasionally launching a scud missile of rationalism into the otherwise claustrophobic atmosphere of unthinking piety.

Political tribalist

Unfortunately, on political issues, Mr Perkins' uncompromising and reliably tribalist hatred perverted those worthy campaigns and induced some regrettable ones. All told, 'Perkins On Line' was the Tivoli of talk radio, and had Motty not existed, the PNP would have been wise to invent him.

John Maxwell, his long-time frenemy, once leaned over mischievously and in a few sentences unravelled the psychological knot of Perkins' obsession with Michael Manley. I was floored. Whether John's information and analysis was correct or not, Perkins' passion for Manley was a textured, rich, suppurating sore around which all other itches gathered. It was undoubtedly frustrating that people stubbornly reward Manley with accolades.

Then came Patterson, a schoolboy junior to Perkins at Calabar, who strode through election after election with Perkins roaring and frothing about his unsuitability. Percival had old schoolmate Wilmot to thank as much as anyone. In fact, Patterson acknowledged this when he said that the more some people cursed him, the more the Jamaican people sided with him. Compare the G2K gleefully dissing Portia in the last campaign.

The majority would hear Perkins, perhaps laugh with him, but then move in the other direction. The whole thing was enjoyable to observe, but probably wasn't the healthiest democratic dynamic.

Holness an apparent disciple

His influence is unquestionable, particularly in media, where imitation remains the sincerest 'farm' of 'fartery'. This is a gift that keeps on giving. I think Andrew Holness was essentially parroting Perkins when, in his short prime ministerial stint, he gave erroneous economic information and mangled quotations that, in Perkinsian versions, are radioland staples: "The law is not a shackle"; "The man who plays by the rules gets shafted"; "Politics is about who gets what, how, where and when".

But it wasn't radioland, so Holness paid an immediate penalty for citing incorrect statistics and misquotations. TVJ analysed the economic inaccuracies and it set off a costly spat with the media. Also, Patterson and Peter Phillips pounced and administered slaps, along with warnings, to Holness to try to concern himself with truthfulness. Right then, Holness would have learned that an undue concern for accuracy was not one of Perkins' faults. But it's clear where Holness suckled.

This was the problem with 'the thinking person's talk show'. Relentless negativity became a self-reinforcing loop of stultification. Mindless repetition of self-defeating half-truths yielded political alienation and defeat.

Daniel Thwaites is a partner of Thwaites, Lundgren & D'Arcy in New York, and currently qualifying for the Jamaican Bar. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.