Howard Chandler Christy Depicts The Founders Signing The U.S. Constitution on September 17, 1787. "Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States" (1940)

Friday, November 30, 2012

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 




No comments:

Post a Comment

Visitor Comments

The dated links and statements below show interaction between the readers and makers of this blog to further the marketplace of ideas that enrich the education of patriots. Certain opinions made to posts are excerpted and re-posted here to highlight interesting discussions by fellow patriots.

Chris CJuly 28, 2013 at 12:31 PM [writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]

I think it is absurd to draw a moral equivalence between innocent until proven guilty and guilty until proven innocent. It should be clear that one is far more protective and respectful of individual rights than the other. It's ironic that you attack the American system here, when it obviously takes more into account that someone could be falsely accused. Hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution rather than the defense.

DonaldJuly 28, 2013 at 8:27 AM[writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]

It is interesting because the American Justice system goes from a innocent until proven guilty point of view. It definitely is no better in China where it is from a guilty until proven innocent point of view. Both are flawed because both lend themselves to being tainted with corruption as well as the norms of society.

Living the JourneyJuly 26, 2013 at 10:11 AM [writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]

I found it interesting that Donald's perception of how America out to be was originally influenced by American fiction. This reminds me of when I arrived in China the first time expecting to see sword toting warriors running on the roofs of ancient temple like buildings. I was definitely surprised by reality.

Donald
July 26, 2013 at 9:09 AM [writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]

Long before Zimmerman was pronounced innocent, people in my country were laughing at the thought of a white man (yes he is white Hispanic really) being found guilty of killing a black teenager. That will never happen they say. When things like that happen, it is the stuff of legend and stories and hollywood scripts. Look at some of the greatest literature found out there (to kill a mocking bird for example). It is the stand of the downtrodden black defendant who triumphs over the hard and brutal white man. This in itself is a tragedy as well because of the stereotypical vision people then have of the US as in the case of many of my country people as well as others from other countries in their view of America.

Anonymous
December 28, 2012 12:13 PM [writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]

I do believe in evil but I also believe that Adam Lanza had mental issues that weren't being addressed. Also, he had been abandoned by his father whom he hadn't seen in over 2 years and who had a second family which Adam was not a part of. Adam had been assigned a school psychologist but somewhere along the line he dropped through the cracks and didn't get the care he needed that could possibly have prevented this tragedy. We'll never know...

Living the JourneyDecember 31, 2012 7:16 AM[writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]

How can evil be defined in a pluralistic society? Is morality something decided by vote? And then following that question, how can evil be "treated"? Jason, I think you're trying to open a door that very few want to walk through because if we do, we are forced to make choices about things many would like to leave "relative".

Anonymous
December 31, 2012 7:36 AM[writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]

I think we should stop offering up drug store psychology and focus on the one common denominator- GUNS. Psychotic people exist in all cultures, nations and religions. Look at the countries in the world with strict gun control laws; such as Japan, Australia, Canada to name a few, and they have far less violence involving guns. Are you blaming secularism? Science? The devil made him do it! Right? Simply, Adam Lanza and other mass murderers are mentally ill. So let's make it impossible for people like him to obtain guns of mass destruction.

Jason Aldous
December 31, 2012 10:56 AM[writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]

Dear Living the Journey, We will always have tragedies so long as there is evil. Evil as such can not be cured through government policy. On the contrary, its work can only be limited through choices made by individuals.

Dear Anonymous, I do blame secular reasoning for making it difficult for us to address the problem. If you take good and evil out of your worldview, morally you can not say there is anything wrong with what Adam Lanza did. You may be horrified at what he did, but you can not judge it against any standards, if good and evil are removed as avenues of inquiry.

Jason AldousDecember 27, 2012 6:39 PM [writing in response to Wednesday, December 26, 2012: Gun Control Part 3: The Second Amendment (A Legal Analysis)]

Let's see, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Even if the wording implies that the populace must be armed when called up for militia service, it says "the right of the people shall not be infringed." Since the amendment states that bearing arms is a "right" and "not to be infringed" it is an open and shut case for anyone taking an objective reading of it. "Rights" are entitlements. Privileges can be taken away, but not rights. It matters not if this right was given with militia service in mind. Good work, Mr. Emma.


AnonymousDecember 17, 2012 3:46 PM [writing in response to Monday, December 17, 2012, Gun Control Part 2: Would Society Be Better Off If All Guns Were Made Illegal? (A Reasonable Treatment)]

On my part, I think that all guns should definitely be regulated and strictly controlled. Its interesting that almost all Americans point to the 2nd amendment. From my point of view, this 2nd Amendment was written in a time when there was 'trust' among people and their government. Today this trust has been flushed down the drain

AnonymousDecember 17, 2012 5:26 PM [writing in response to Monday, December 17, 2012, Gun Control Part 2: Would Society Be Better Off If All Guns Were Made Illegal? (A Reasonable Treatment)]

In 1959, 60% of the American public favored a ban on handguns. Today, the majority of the American people don't even support a ban on assault rifles. Why? Because since 1959, the argument that tighter gun control would reduce crime has been effectively refuted in the mind of the public. The change in attitude toward gun control is primarily due to fear of crime rather than distrust of government.


GeoDecember 8, 2012 2:11 PM [writing in response to Friday, December 7, 2012, Pearl Harbor: Was It Japan's Fault, or America's? (Conspiracy Theory vs. History)]

FDR campainged on keeping the US out of the war but when he wanted to get into the war he needed an excuse. He may very well have been tempted to withhold information from his top commanders at Pearl Harbor. They certainly suspected he did.

GeoDecember 8, 2012 at 1:28 PM[writing in response to Saturday, December 1, 2012, Voting In A Bad Economy, Recession Myths: De-Constructing Historical Falsification]

Can't argue with your observations, Jason, but even with the limited space no mention of the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs in any discussion of Hoover/Great Depression/FDR is to ignore an elephant in the room.

Chris CDecember 7, 2012 at 4:40 PM[writing in response to Tuesday, November 27, 2012, The Next Great American President: Who We Need To Look For In 2016]

One qualm: I don't think Suez can be regarded as a long-term success for Eisenhower. It bought us no credibility with the developing world and managed to alienate important Allies. As a result, we got no real help from Britain in Vietnam and plenty of hostility from France in the 1960's. France's desire to oppose or sabotage us on key issues has continued to this day.