The Real Reasons For Republican Defeats in 2012

So the 2012 presidential election is history and it didn't turn out well for conservatives or Republicans. For the disappointed, it is crucial to draw the correct lessons from this defeat in order to come roaring back in the midterm elections of 2014. Mitt Romney did not lose because he was too liberal or too conservative. Michelle Bachmann and Newt Gingrich could not have won either. Back in the primaries, Rick Santorum stepped in every social issue-trap the media laid out for him. He would have been a crispy critter going up against Barack Obama.

On the flip-side, a more liberal Republican would not have stood a better chance. Suppose you had a liberal Republican on the debate stage with Barack Obama. Do you really think a liberal Democrat or a liberal-leaning independent voter is going to vote for a watered-down liberal Republican when they can get the real thing by voting for Barack Obama?

If Republicans think the way to win in 2014 and 2016 is to roll out the most conservative candidates they can possibly find, they will lose in a landslide of Goldwater proportions. Ronald Reagan was a great candidate not because he was more conservative than everyone else, but because he only talked about the most pressing issues everyone cared about: inflation, job growth, military preparedness, lower taxes, and greater pride in the spirit of patriotism that made this country great to begin with. Reagan had a winning smile and was quick with a story and a joke. Reagan avoided speaking on the most controversial issues. Santorum, Akin, and Mourdock lost because they could not control their tongues.

This does not suggest conservatives should compromise their values and become Democrats in order to win elections. But conservatives do not need to blab all day long about every single issue that is important to them, in the name of outspoken-ness. Abraham Lincoln's law partner, William Herndon, claimed Lincoln's winning virtue was that he knew when to keep his mouth shut.

In the 2012 election, the most readily offered answer from the demographics of the popular vote was Republicans did poorly among every group in society except for white men and married, white women. Nonetheless, it would be a mistake to think conservatism is unattractive to minorities and the young. George W. Bush did quite well with Hispanics in both his elections and, let's not forget, joblessness stares the college youths in the face.

The Romney campaign largely ignored the Hispanic community. Romney said little about them other than his pledge to crack down on illegal immigration - not a winning issue with that demographic. He made some soft comments about the Republican party being the "natural home" of Hispanics in light of their conservative stances on religious issues and family, as well as the value of hard work. But slogans are no substitute for outreach. By contrast, the Democrats did huge, systemic, get out-the-vote drives were able to define Romney negatively for minority voters.

Time was never on Romney's side. After a grueling primary campaign, he had scarcely more than six months to build his ground game. Obama had been building his for five years or more. In fact, since 2010 the president has done little more than campaign. He is the chronic campaigner. This gets to the heart of why Romney lost. It wasn't conservative values that did him in. The fact that looms larger than everything else is a simple truism - it is hard to defeat an incumbent president. Romney stood a chance, but it was a long shot.

In the more than two hundred years this country has had presidents, only nine presidents who sought re-election were defeated. Nine presidents in two hundred years. Think about it. Of those nine, eight were defeated because of primary challenges from their own party. Jimmy Carter was defeated as much by Ted Kennedy as from Reagan. George H.W. Bush faced a primary challenge from Pat Buchanan and then had to run against Ross Perot (a strong, independent conservative) and Bill Clinton, at the same time.

So what do conservatives do now, abandon conservatism? Hardly. Let's not forget the groundswell victories conservatives won against Obamism in 2010. Republicans captured solid control of the House of Representatives, and they'll keep that majority following the latest election. How could that have happened in two consecutive elections if conservative values were out of fashion?  The truth is, there are plenty of people out there who understand fully well that only conservative solutions work against the biggest challenges our country faces: debt, inflation, joblessness, taxation, entitlements, and military preparedness. 

Republicans assumed Obama's failures spoke for themselves and that the public was ready to throw him out. Unfortunately for the GOP: facts, values, and good debates are not as effective as building a ground game. knocking on doors, shaking hands with people, listening to their concerns, and getting them to vote is the work that lay ahead if conservatives want to make a comeback. They can do it, because the solutions are on their side.

Democrats are not just unwilling, they are unable to provide solutions to the nation's problems because they are elected by constituencies who are demanding more and more of the services that exacerbate these problems. Democrats do not even pretend to care about these issues. The day after the election, when asked by a reporter if the debt ceiling will need to be raised another $3 trillion by the spring, Senate ruler Harry Reid, said "Sure. If it needs to be raised, we'll raise it." If Reid gets his way the national debt will soon be $19 trillion. Only conservatism can turn this country away from the debt bomb that stares us in the face. Sooner or later, more than 50% of the public will cry out for real leadership on this menace.

For now, conservatives, feel good about who you are. Get back on your feet, dust off your shoulders, and keep fighting. The country needs you. You may lose elections from time to time, but you are never defeated unless you quit. 

Patriot Thought 

The Next Great American President: Who We Need To Look For In 2016

A year and a half ago, I was reading Paul Johnson's Modern Times: The World from the Twenties to the Nineties and I was struck by this claim:

"Eisenhower was the most successful twentieth-century president."

You would never have heard anything like this from the mainstream media, from most college professors, or from very many people in Hollywood. On the contrary, all day long it is Kennedy, Kennedy, and Kennedy. This is because John F. Kennedy (35th U.S. president 1961-1963) had that glamorous, GQ image some people think is such an important leadership quality. By contrast, Eisenhower came across as old, bald, and boring. It didn't help that he was a Republican.

Kennedy stood up for civil rights reform, that is, he gave emotional speeches supporting it. It matters not that Kennedy failed to get a significant civil rights bill passed through Congress; surely he would have succeeded in another attempt had he not been gunned down in Dallas on November 22, 1963. Maybe... or maybe not... We will never know.

Eisenhower, in the judgement of many historians, was aloof about the need for civil rights reform. Eisenhower sent an airborne division into Little Rock, Arkansas, to forcibly desegregate a school there, or rather, make sure the officials complied with a court order to do so. He didn't do it out of the kindness of his heart. He did it to show states couldn't defy federal courts, right?

Paul Johnson's claim about Eisenhower being the most successful twentieth-century president got me interested in researching this old, bald, boring, aloof, old president, a little further. Then, last summer, I picked up a new, hardback biography entitled Eisenhower In War And Peace by Jean Edward Smith. The book offered a new, fresh take on the 34th president. It sought to debunk fabrications and distortions about him. Among the revisions was new evidence, not new, but ignored by most researchers. This evidence shows Eisenhower to have been a very active and effective president in combating race discrimination. Here are the facts:

*Eisenhower desegregated the armed forces. The previous president, Harry Truman, gave the order and gets the credit. However, until Eisenhower was elected the order was ignored by the military. Eisenhower made sure they complied with the order and held them accountable.

*Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren, John Harlan, and William Brennan to the U.S. Supreme Court: all fierce activists for civil rights reform. Many Eisenhower appointees to the justice department were of the same ilk and would play a pivotal role in the civil rights fights of the 50's and 60's.

The book uncovers many more nuggets of reality that dispel the unfair notion that Eisenhower was aloof on civil rights. Part of the reason not much of it has come to light until now is because Eisenhower, unlike some other presidents, did not get on a soapbox and blab all day long about his accomplishments. Instead, he worked behind the scenes to do what he wanted and allowed other people to reap the credit.

Johnson's and Smith's work raised the stature of President Eisenhower in my ranking of U.S. presidents. Then a month ago, I found myself thumbing through a reference work of essays on the American presidents. When I got to the essay on Eisenhower, the first paragraph stopped me dead in my tracks! I read it over and over to let the meaning sink into the recesses of my understanding. It had me thinking about the very qualities that make a presidency successful. I then realized why such qualities are sorely lacking in the current White House. Here is the text of the paragraph from the book The American Presidency: The Authoritative Reference (Editors Alan Brinkley an Davis Dyer):

"The Eisenhower Presidency [34th U.S. president 1953 - 1961] was one of the most unusual in modern American history. Both Eisenhower himself and many of his top aides had no previous experience in public office. Even more atypical, he and they had spent most of their adult lives rising to the the top in other fields of endeavor, most notably the military, business, law, and education. In no other twentieth-century presidential administration did the professional politician enjoy less prestige and influence. Despite, or perhaps because of, those circumstances, Eisenhower's presidency was highly competitive, effective, and successful, the most so of any presidency since World War II."

-David L. Stebenne
Ohio State University

Here Is The Rundown of Eisenhower's Other Presidential Successes:

*expansion of Social Security coverage to the self-employed and to the domestically employed

*construction of the interstate highway system, funded not by the deficit, but by a fuel tax

*construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway, which greatly improved trade between the U.S. and Canada

*the end of the Korean War (a campaign promise, fulfilled within months of taking office)

*stopping Communist China from attacking Taiwan, without using nuclear weapons

*stopping a war between Britain, Israel, and France vs. Egypt over Suez

*allowing Senator Joe McCarthy enough political rope to hang himself by bating him into a fight with the military

*curbs on union power

*cuts in federal spending which led to a balanced federal budget

*expansion of the U2 surveillance plane program, which later allowed us to discover nuclear-tipped, Soviet missiles being installed in Cuba, and pointed at Florida

*telling the Soviet Union to go take a hike when they gave us an ultimatum to evacuate ALL of Berlin (an ultimatum, which was given again to Kennedy, who meekly abandoned East Berlin, which was soon walled-off from the world)

The second item on the list above, construction of the interstate highway system, had a greater transformative impact on the daily life of the American people than any other single domestic reform of all time. It provided many "shovel-ready" jobs that helped the economy rebound from a brief recession, and paved the golden age of the American auto industry. 

Have another look at some of the other items. Do you notice that many of them have to do with advancing American interests abroad without getting into costly wars? Some of them have to do with ending wars, or using American might to prevent other countries from attacking each other. America back then was functioning like a superpower, in a respectable way. Ask yourself, based on recent events in the Middle East, "Is America still respected as a superpower?" This is a timely question.

Now, have another look at the paragraph from The American Presidency: The Authoritative Reference. You may notice that some of the bold words have to do with business and other private-sector leaders running the country instead of professional politicians. The difference between business leaders and professional politicians is not just a difference in life-occupation, it is also a difference in character. This point was given clarity to me recently, when my ears caught a segment from Neal Boortz's radio show.

Boortz explained the difference between a businessman and a politician in these ways: 

*one is sought for their job; the other seeks their job

*one invests their capital, and their ability to stay in power is based on results; the other invests the capital of taxpayers and blames other entities for failures

*one is hired by people who run the industry; the other is hired by anyone who shows up to cast a vote

*one is qualified based on credentials, experience, and job 
performance; the other is qualified by age, citizenship, and friends who are willing to promote their candidacy by making promises to an electorate, some of whom are barely literate

Dear Reader,

In thinking about the qualities needed in your next favorite candidate for the presidency in 2016, certain principles should come to mind. Some may be obvious: devotion to constitutional principles, love of country, fiscal responsibility, and an America-first foreign policy. 

Other qualities may be more subtle, but equally important. Not the least of these is a results-based decision making compass. Competence builds this compass. Accomplishment bolsters it. Wisdom guides it through the fog of everyday life. More than most, President Eisenhower embodied this style of leadership. It is a style sorely lacking and badly needed today in the White House and on Capitol Hill.

Patriot Thought

Steven Spielberg's Lincoln (2012): A Review From a Fan of the Historic Lincoln

Last Tuesday night, patriotic feeling showered over me as I left a showing of Lincoln at my local AMC theater. I was overcome with a heavy sorrow for the ghastly sacrifices my forefathers made to make America great. As I exited the theater, I overheard a group of teenagers muttering among themselves. One of them said, "That was a lame movie." If you're looking for action and suspense, see the latest Bond movie instead. But if you're looking for a film to learn something from, you will not want to miss Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln.

What will you learn from a film like this? As an avid reader of history, I sincerity believe Spielberg portrays Abraham Lincoln and the people of his times accurately and responsibly. By taking the battle for passage of the Thirteenth Amendment (which forever abolished the practice of slavery in the United States) as the focal point of the story's events, Spielberg slays the mythology that President Lincoln freed slaves only to pack his armies with more soldiers to wage the Civil War.

If that were true, Lincoln's efforts to free enslaved African Americans would have ended with the Emancipation Proclamation (January 1^st, 1863) - a temporary, wartime measure intended to undermine the capacity of the Confederacy to continue the war. On the contrary, Lincoln placed his own re-election in jeopardy to further the work of the Emancipation Proclamation by pushing for a constitutional amendment that would forever extinguish slavery. The amendment passed the House of Representatives on January 31^st, 1865, and formally became part of the U.S. Constitution on December 6^th of the same year.

Setting history straight is not the only virtue of this film. Superb, Oscar-worthy performances abound throughout Lincoln.  Daniel Day-Lewis looks exactly the way Lincoln was rendered in photographs and behaves precisely the way Lincoln was described by his contemporaries. The historic Lincoln's homey mannerisms and sometimes off-color jokes are on vibrant display in Lewis' rendering. The fiery, anguished, emotion-drenched Mary Todd Lincoln could not be more effectively brought to life by anyone other than by the magnificent Sally Field. The rugged, idealistic, congressional abolitionist Thaddeus Stevens nearly steals the show in Tommy Lee Jones' masterful hands.

The sometimes tedious political discourse in the film is navigable if you understand a few concepts. In the context of the Civil War period, Democrats wanted to leave slavery alone and end the war with or without victory. "Conservative Republicans" did not like slavery, but were unenthusiastic about freeing slaves as a necessary means of winning the war.

 "Radical Republicans" (like Thaddeus Stevens) were crusaders for social justice who cared more about destroying slavery and righting the social wrongs of American culture than about winning the war or preserving the Union; if anything, they wanted to wage the war to forge a new Union based on equality for all.  Lincoln's success was based on his ability to bring the conservative and radical wings of his party together to advance his twin goals of social justice and preservation of the Union. To harvest bipartisan support, Lincoln offered government jobs to lame-duck Democrats who had been turned out of office during the November 1864 election but were still voting in Congress until their term expired.

In sum, Steven Spielberg's Lincoln is a badly needed correction to the mythology promulgated by writers (Thomas Di Lorenzo, author of The Real Lincoln for one) who believe Lincoln was driven by cynical, political calculations rather than moral values centered on social justice.  Quite the opposite, Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln (based in part on the exhaustively researched work of history Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin) shows the Great Emancipator to have had the qualities of leadership most-needed in America’s current political culture: courage to do what’s right regardless of the political consequences, a willingness to reach across the aisle to look for common ground, and a sincere desire to accomplish something for the greater good of our society.  

Jason Aldous

11/25/2012