Posted on 11/19/2010 7:01:37 PM PST by Brices Crossroads
I hate to admit it but, as big as the victory in 2010 was, it could have been bigger. As Mark Levin put it the other night, "When it comes to liberty, I am greedy". It would have been wonderful to see Sharron Angle (who lost by 5), Ken Buck (who lost by 1), and probably Joe Miller (who stands to lose by about 3) in the Senate, and each of these races was within reach. A number of factors unique to each race played a role in the candidate's loss, but I think a salient (and likely decisive) factor in all three races was the de-emphasis of social issues in all three races. Abortion was not a frontburner issue in any of these races. Indeed, the national GOP's congressional manifesto--the Pledge to America--was received coolly by social conservatives, because it barely mentioned abortion or traditional marriage.
"Social Conservatives Coolly Welcome GOP's 'Pledge to America"
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100924/social-conservatives-coolly-welcome-gops-pledge-to-america/
This is curious, given that the 2010 electorate was strongly prolife according both to Gallup (51%-42%) and the Fox polls.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx
Moreover, the electorate was ripe for such a message. According to a post election poll by McLaughlin and Associates:
"The largest segment of people who voted on Election Day were self-described conservatives (49%). Conservatives significantly outnumbered Republicans (39%), Democrats (37%), Independents (21%) and ticket splitters (20%). There were more conservatives who voted in this election than any other political group. Even 47% of Independents called themselves conservatives.
It thus appears that this reticence to hammer home the differences on abortion and gay marriage actually cost the GOP key Senate seats and very likely some House seats as well. Anxious not to offend, the GOP failed to inspire, and the massive turnout advantage (55-40) predicted by Gallup failed to materialize on election day. In other words, the GOP left unspent cartridges in the magazine of its electoral rifle. In a low turnout midterm election , this did not prevent a huge (albeit incomplete) victory. In a higher turnout Presidential election (by which time the economy may have recovered somewhat) focusing on fiscal issues alone will likely not be enough. But the hidebound GOP Establishment seems incapable of grasping this simple maxim.
Ronald Reagan certainly understood that a sweeping victory was possible only by uniting the economic and social conservatives in a single coalition and boldly articulating both social and economic conservatism. Sure, he probably alienated some social liberals with this strategy but these defectors were vastly outnumbered by the influx of social conservatives who would turn out to vote as long as the candidate boldly and forcefully articulated their issues, and drew brightline distinctions between the parties.
As Craig Shirley points out in his excellent book on the 1980 campaign, rendezvous with Destiny, at page 21-2:
"Reagan called for bringing into the Republican fold those Democrats concerned with "social issues---law and order, abortion, busing, quota systems--[that]are usually associated with the blue collar, ethnic, and religious groups." In short he proposed a fusion between those mercantile and economic interests long associated with the GOP, who were mostly concerned with government regulations, and social conservatives, who believed the fabric of society was also threatened by big, intrusive government..."
Sarah Palin, alone among the potential GOP nominees, not only perceives the absolute necessity for such a fusion of social and economic conservatism in order to generate the turnout necessary for 2012, but she alone has the capacity to make it happen. With the possible exception of Jim Demint and Mike Huckabee, every potential nominee seems perfectly comfortable with the Establishment hitting the "mute button" on social issues.
Like their acolytes in the GOP Establishment, Romney, Daniels, Barbour and Thune appear to treat those issues with timidity and embarrassment (as did the Bushes), preferring to de-emphasize such cultural issues in favor of the "mercantile issues" such as taxes and spending. Where Reagan saw a FUSION of the social issues with the mercantile, or economic issues, these timid creatures of the Establishment prefer to mute the social issues (and the constituencies which support them). At best, they will tolerate such issues but never emphasize or highlight them.
Since Demint is not running, Huckabee is perhaps the only GOP candidate, other than Palin, whose pro life bona fides and zeal are not suspect. However, his Arkansas record as a taxer and spender would be offputting to economic conservatives, such as the libertarian CATO Institute, and his extravagant issuance of pardons would tarnish his reputation as a social conservative. He lacks the capacity to put the coalition together. As Fred Thompson said of Huck in 2008, he is a "pro-life liberal".
Palin, on the other hand, with her record of reducing state spending in absolute terms in Alaska, while rebating oil royalties to the taxpayers, is looked upon favorably by economic as well as social conservatives. To win big in 2012, the GOP must breathe from both of its conservative lungs, social and economic. Indeed, if the economic equation changes for the better, a resurrection of the old Reagan coalition may be the only path to victory. In either case, Sarah Palin is the only candidate with both the resoluteness and the ability to make this happen.
I agree. Everywhere but places like San Francisco and a few other liberal hell holes, the pro-life, pro-family position is an election winner. And gay marriage has been voted down everywhere, even in California.
I think those candidates all WERE morally sound and on the right side of these issues, but they made a mistake avoiding them.
It’s the same mistake McCain made when he refused to press Obama on his extreme pro-abortion record. No one admires a guy who would vote three times to kill babies after they are born alive. Obama did that. But he managed to cover that up, with McCain’s convenient help.
I should have mentioned Gingrich as part of the Establishment group as well.
Michael Pence is as pro-life/family as Mrs Palin and he doesn’t have two ill-mannered; crude daughters.
Better link to McLaughlin poll on 2010 election:
http://www.mclaughlinonline.com/lib/sitefiles/National_Memo_1117%5B1%5D.pdf
I don't think it was an oversight worth mentioning. Newt falls near the bottom of the pack of presidential hopefuls anyway. There's just no meaningful support out there for him to run.
Except for his buddy, Sean Hannity, that is.
Lesson to be learned from Massachusetts:
April 8,2009
New Mass. Republican Party Chairman says party will no longer oppose same-sex “marriage”, abortion, other “social issues”
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/09b/nassour/index.html
Nov 4, 2010
Mass. Republicans lose ALL statewide & Congressional races!
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/govt10/election10/general/results_statewide.html
Yea. We should all have voted against Regan because his two kids were far from ideal. /sarc/
Sheesh. Are you serious? Who gives a hoot about Mike Pence’s kids? We’re talking about the survival of the United States and you hare talking about the kids.
“Lesson to be learned from Massachusetts:”
Yea. The de-emphasis of the social issues there worded out great, didn’t it?
I don't think I could have handled it and I seriously doubt you could have either. But, it's always fun throwing stones, isn't it?
Law and Order issues provide other gray areas. With the government overreaching into the private lives of citizens based upon "The War On Drugs", "The War On Terror" and "The Nanny State" while refusing to focus on the drug dealers and users, terrorists and other law breakers. Many people are hesitant to give any level of government additional laws.
I don't disagree with you main idea, just a different math will be necessary for 2012. Also, won't there be a loss of electoral votes on the coasts and some Rust Belt states with a shift to the South?
Excellent analysis. If Sarah does decide to run this is going to be one bloody primary season. Everyone who hated and badmouthed Reagan will be praising him and attempting to claim his mantle all the while saying the same things about Sarah they said of him 30 years earlier. One thing Sarah has that Reagan had is the ability to bypass the media and speak directly to and connect with the American people. That will be essential to begin to whittle away at those unfavorables.
I do think Palin will run and we will see absolutely unprecedented vitriol from both the rinos and dims. Heck, they’re stroking out now and she’s not running for a thing. At his point outside of DeMint and Pence she’s head and shoulders above the rest so for true conservatives our options are very limited.
“‘Look at what’s happened over the past two years, and you tell me that we don’t have a more effective strategy than our peers,’ Palin aide Michael Goldfarb told RealClearPolitics. ‘Who’s been able to get their message out more effectively? Who’s had greater influence? And you tell me why we should play by the same rules that the press wants everybody to play by. It doesn’t make any sense.’…
“‘If she was out there making the case for bigger government and more welfare and universal health care in the same tone and in the same vein, she would be a hero of the New York Times editorial board,’ Michael Goldfarb said. ‘They don’t like what she’s saying. It’s not how she says it or the basis of why she says it. They don’t agree with her, and they see her as threatening, so what you get is this, ‘She’s not up to the job,’ and there are people in the Republican Party who will say that, too, because people have different preferences as far as leaders in the party and have different agendas. But out there in the real world, Republicans respect Sarah Palin and they listen to what she says, and she has a real impact. And that’s why she was the most coveted endorsement among Republicans in the last election.’…
“Palin’s challenges remain numerous as she comes to a decision on whether to run for president. If the answer is indeed ‘yes,’ one of her first big moves will be planning the official announcement of her campaign-a date that one Palin confidante privately agreed will likely come later in 2011, after her lesser known opponents launch their own runs and she can assess the field.”
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/11/19/quotes-of-the-day-515/
Your comments smells bit 'fishy'. I detect a slight odor of PDS.
“Everyone who hated and badmouthed Reagan will be praising him and attempting to claim his mantle all the while saying the same things about Sarah they said of him 30 years earlier.”
I notice that both Rove and Mary Matalin are doing this. Neither one of them ever supported Reagan. They were Bushies from the get go. Now they act as if they were for Reagan BDVD (Before Death valley Days)
Just let her run if she wants to. Even if she doesn’t win, she is going to push the platform to the right, both on social and economic issues. My only concern is who stands behind her. No one can be President without an idea of who to fill the government. She will have to fill, what 6,000 people in any administration.
Obviously she has forgotten about the Bush twins back when they were young.
Excellent analysis.
Unelected judges who do not follow strict constitutional jurisprudence should also be a part of the public debate.
Her focus as well should be that as an executive leader she would appoint judges who interpret the law; rather than legislative from the bench.
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.