Posted on 05/08/2014 8:25:20 AM PDT by IChing
The other day I was talking to my friend, Steve, about politics. I met Steve in 2008, when we had both volunteered to work on the McCain-Palin campaign. At that time, Steve and I wound up doing frequent door-to-door canvassing together, and feverishly working the phone banks for the national, state, and local races. We both soon became GOP precinct captains of our adjoining respective areas, and even though I later moved a short distance away, we have stayed in close contact ever since, occasionally reuniting to volunteer on campaigns, attending political meetings and events, and talking on the phone quite often.
Steve is self-employed. He makes his living by studying the financial markets and publishing a specialized newsletter, for which his subscribers around the world pay him to advise them on financial forecasting.
So I’m on the phone with Steve recently, and as usual the topic of the 2016 presidential election came up. Steve hit me with an intriguing (although somewhat troubling) concept which I have not been able to shake from my skull since that day he suggested it.
My friend argued that Republicans should just let the Democrat party keep the White House in 2016; deliberately throw the election to whoever the Democrats nominate.
His reasoning went along the following lines: A horrible economic reckoning is coming, and the masses and the media will lay the blame for it on whoever/whichever party holds the presidency when it hits.
According to Steve’s analysis–based on market trends, key indicators, debt/GDP projections, and mathematical models with which many other experts agree–the worst of the bad economic policy chickens of the Obama administration (along with, finally, those of LBJ’s “Great Society” and various other mostly Democrat fiscal train wrecks) will come home to roost after Obama completes his second term and is gone from office. Things will get very bad, and very ugly.
Furthermore, the next president–no matter how wise, moral, and strong of character–will not be able to really do anything to help the situation enough to avert profound and widespread calamity, due to its far-reaching roots and tentacles, and its severity. Any and all manner of market collapses and fiscal disasters will take place, and the “low-information voter(LIV)” crowd will of course associate it all–rightly or wrongly–with whichever party’s president happens to be “holding the bag” at the time.
That is, whoever occupies the White House, when the corrupt spigot of fake entitlement money/benefits starts to sputter and run dry, and even more millions are thrown out of work than already have been, will be seen as the chief culprit.
Do Republicans really want to be anywhere near the scene of that crime, if and when such an economic doomsday scenario comes around?
Steve’s argument really gave me pause. Of course, I had already been exposed to theories about how the GOP shot-callers hadn’t really wanted to win presidential elections before. The conspiracy-theory concept of throwing an election isn’t new. It’s just that I’d never really contemplated that it might actually be a good idea, for longer-term prospects of emerging as the party of genuine reform and recovery, without misplaced stigma and blame.
Have I (and others) been a bit naive all along?
The teeming throngs of millions of average, everyday voters simply do not follow politics as closely as do most of you who are reading this. They largely don’t vote (or don’t actually scrutinize the issues/candidates) in mid-term elections for House of Representatives and Senate seats. Millions of them vote only every four years when the presidency is at stake. So notwithstanding GOP ambitions for winning back the senate this November, doing harm reduction tactics against Obamacare and so forth–can Republicans afford, politically and for the sake of the next generation to follow the reckoning, to have one of ours at the helm of this particular ship of state, this Titanic?
As a country, we have incurred insane debts which are mathematically impossible to ever pay off. Despite our being the most productive nation on the planet, we simply cannot produce enough, even if we somehow miraculously enact spending moratoriums, to ever catch up with the runaway interest and payments on the staggeringly unfathomable amounts we’ve borrowed and spent.
Perhaps, once the party’s really over and the horrific hangover and delirium tremens set in, it’s best that the low-information voters who are finally, rudely jolted awake get a good, long look at the kind of politician who has never met a spending increase or entitlement program he or she didn’t like. Maybe the person appearing on their screens, pleading for calm and for an end to the rioting–and appropriately bearing the brunt of all the blame for it–should have the Democrat brand all over her (or his) face and name.
Just a thought.
No.
That is when we need a strong leader the most.
It is a case of, "How can we possibly..."
A Tea Party president or even a conservative one is a pipe dream.
So we should allow things to hit rock bottom, and then try again in 2020 or 2024 for the presidency????
So there is nothing a GOP president can do, to alleviate the situation, if elected in 2016?
You mean, no we shouldn’t?
True enough. However, if we elect a dim-bulb-crat, the MSM druids will continue to lie such that whatever happens will be concealed or the blame transferred.
And the public, being primarily schooled by education majors in our pubic (misspelling intended) schools, will march in lockstep into oblivion.
And the gays, of course, will do nothing except continue to be concerned with nothing other than who they’ll boink tonight...while simultaneously demanding that we close any business that actually tells them what most of us actually think.
I don’t see it happening.
Too much ideological and political bulimia going on.
This seems like a real possibility unless a good leader could really start to turn things around,which is badly needed. I guess the real question is whether or not a good leader could accomplish enough in a short enough period of time. This current “leadership” has certainly fouled the nest for everyone.
Even if the left held all three branches of government for the next 10 years and things went to hell in a handbasket. They would STILL blame the Republicans, or the rich, or the Koch brothers, or Rush, or basically anyone but themselves. And since the media will amplify whatever message the left chooses to use. The gullible majority will believe the that everything is still somehow the evil republicans fault, or at least the evil rich peoples fault who the Republicans protect.
No, this won't work as a strategy. Plus and perhaps most important... dont forget about the Supreme court. Several of our conservative judges are getting up there in age... and we honestly cant afford to lose even one.
No, the media will blame Republicans or conservatives no matter what.
The masses will demand a government that will take care of them so we'll likely end up with open Marxism (vs. the secretive variety we "enjoy" today.)
Should have said...
Yes, we dare. Let’s have our 2014 tsunami first.
No, don’t listen to this. The zero has a couple of years to increase the damage and he will. Four more years gives us a likely 8 more years. Plenty of time for the beast to finish us off.
Well, according to this line of thinking, I’m sure there could be some things such a leader could do to lessen the severity of it all, but not enough to avert calamity nor to be seen as other than the chief culprit, as described. Of course, it is just a theory. It may be accurate, it may be not. But I don’t think anyone can plausibly argue that the $70 trillion ( or whatever ungodly amount it is) in unfunded liabilities we face is something that’s just going to be inconsequential.
Detroit is crumbling into the ground and the left (which has been in total control there for 50+ years) STILL blames the rich, the greedy corporations, the Republicans, or who ever.
The left will NEVER, EVER, no matter how bad things get, EVER, blame itself or it's policies for anything.
Thanks for clarifying.
Sorry about that. Please see my clarification posted to myself RE my trigger reaction/blunder. Thanks :)
:)
The Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) will blame Republicans no matter who is actually “in charge”. Better to actually have some prayer of heading off or minimizing the coming damage than try to earn political points that won’t come anyway.
Not if it ain’t a conservative.
[ Even if the left held all three branches of government for the next 10 years and things went to hell in a handbasket. They would STILL blame the Republicans, or the rich, or the Koch brothers, or Rush, or basically anyone but themselves. And since the media will amplify whatever message the left chooses to use. The gullible majority will believe the that everything is still somehow the evil republicans fault, or at least the evil rich peoples fault who the Republicans protect. ]
Well Said, we could even have a “Galt’s Strike Rebellion” and the Blame would ALL be placed on the Galts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.