The Tea Party Got It Right, Mitt Got It Wrong

FrontPage Magazine ^ | November 7, 2012 | Daniel Greenfield

[SJackson]

In this election the Republican Party ran two wholly inoffensive blue state Republicans on a platform of jobs at a time when the economy was everyone’s chief concern and the incumbent had absolutely failed to fix the economy. And they lost.

The Monday — or Wednesday — morning quarterbacks will have a fine time debating what Mitt Romney should have done differently. The red Republicans will say that he should have been more aggressive and should have hit Obama on Benghazi. The blue Republicans will blame a lack of outreach to Latinos. Some will blame Sandy, others will blame Christie and many will point to voter fraud. And they will all have a point, but the makings of this defeat did not happen in the last two weeks; they happened in the last two years.

Mitt Romney won the primaries because he was electable. But, as it turned out, he really wasn’t electable after all. Not when the chief criteria of electability is having no opinion, no point of view and no reason to run for office except to win. Not when the chief criteria of being a Republican presidential nominee is being able to convince people that you’re hardly a Republican at all.

Romney was a star political athlete who had an excellent training regimen and coaching staff. But to win elections, you have to change people’s minds. It’s not enough to try hard or to fight hard; you have to fight for something besides the chance to round the bases. You have to wake people up to a cause.

The Republican comeback did not begin with innocuous candidates; it began with angry protesters in costumes and Gadsden flags marching outside ObamaCare town halls. The 2010 midterm election triumphs were not the work of a timorous establishment, but of a vigorous grassroots opposition. And once the Tea Party movement started the fire, the Republican establishment acted like the Tea Party had sabotaged their comeback and cut the ties with their own grassroots movement. Separated, the Republican grassroots and the Republican Party both withered on the vine.

The stunning 2010 midterm election victories happened because a conservative opposition loudly and vociferously convinced a majority of Americans that ObamaCare would be harmful to them. And then that fantastic engine of change was packed away and replaced with political consultants who were all focused on seizing the center and offending as few people as possible. But you don’t win political battles by being inoffensive. And you don’t win elections by avoiding conflict.

Is it any wonder that the 2012 election played out the way it did?

The Democrats in the Bush years were about as unlikable a party as could ever be conceived of. They were hostile, hateful and obstructionist. They spewed conspiracy theories at the drop of a hat and behaved in a way that would have convinced any reasonable person not to entrust them with a lawnmower, let alone political power. And not only were they rewarded for that by winning Congress, but they also went on to win the White House.

Why? Because dissatisfied people gravitate to an opposition. They don’t gravitate to a loyal opposition. They aren’t inspired by mild-mannered rhetoric, but by those who appear to channel their anger.

When the Republican Party sold out the Tea Party, it sold out its soul, and the only driving energy that it had. And there was nothing to replace it with. The Republican Party stopped being the opposition and became a position that it was willing to reposition to get closer to the center. Mitt Romney embodied that willingness to say anything to win and it is exactly that willingness to say anything to win that the public distrusts.

The elevation of Mitt Romney was the triumph of inoffensiveness. Romney ran an aggressive campaign, but it was a mechanical exercise, a smooth assault by trained professionals paid to spin talking points in dangerous directions. But, what if the voters really wanted a certain amount of offensiveness?

What if they wanted someone who mirrored their anger at being out of work, at having to look at stacks of unpaid bills and at not knowing where their next paycheck was coming from? What if they wanted someone whose anger and distrust of the government echoed their own?

Romney very successfully made the case that he would be a more credible steward of the economy. It was enough to turn out a sizable portion of the electorate, but not enough of it. He tried to be Reagan confronting Carter, but what was remarkable about Reagan, is that he had moments of anger and passion; electric flashes of feeling that stirred his audience and made them believe that he understood their frustrations. That was the source of Reagan’s moral authority and it was entirely lacking in Romney. And without that anger, there is no compelling reason to vote for an opposition party.

The establishment had its chance with Mitt Romney. The former Massachusetts governor was everything that they could possibly want. Moderate, bipartisan and fairly liberal. With his business background, he could make a perfect case for being able to turn the economy around. They had their perfect candidate and their perfect storm and they blew it.

The Republican Party is not going to win elections by being inoffensive. It is not going to win elections by going so far to the center that it no longer stands for anything. It is not going to win elections by throwing away all the reasons that people might have to vote for it. It is not going to win elections by constantly trying to accommodate what it thinks independent voters want, instead of cultivating and growing its base, and using them as the nucleus for an opposition that will change the minds of those independent voters.

The Republican Party has tried playing Mr. Nice Guy. It may be time to get back to being an opposition movement. And the way to do that is by relearning the lessons of the Tea Party movement. The Democratic Party began winning when it embraced the left, instead of running away from it. If the Republican Party wants to win, then it has to embrace the right and learn to get angry again.

[antceecee]

Agree. Great post. Hope there are people out there who think the same and can implement these actions.

[Darksheare]

Creepers?
You’re really working it tonight.
Just so precious.

[tsowellfan]

Conveniently forgetting the economic collapse on Dumbo Dubya’s watch

YOU are the culprit, my friend. According to the exit polls it is your statement that was the reason why many voted for Obama.

I'm NO big fan of GW Bush especially his second term. But your statment is what gave us Obama in 2008 and it gave us Obama in 2012.

Here's the truth

... From 2002 through 2006 Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid continuously called 4.7% unemployment under Bush, the GOP led Senate and the GOP led House as the worst economy since Herbert Hoover. They spent 2 years campaigning with this mantra.

The democrats spent 2 years campaigning against the "terrible economic" numbers threatening to raise taxes on businesses. They won.

The day after the democrats won both the Senate and House is when the economic downturn really started. Busnesses started tightening their belts the day after the elections. Just like to see the reaction of the stock market today.

Unfortunately Bush's silence on these accusations and some republicans including Romney who publically accept this false narrative as truth (because they hope to get some democrats to move to their side and vote for them)the American people have no reason to doubt that Obama's economy was Bush's doing. This is a democrat economy that started after the democrats won both houses.

Your statement is the primary reason why we lost last night. The exit polls show that.

Lame duck Bush's bailouts didn't help either. But if the economy was good under Pelosi/Reid, there would be no need for a bailout in the first place.

[KantianBurke]

“The democrats spent 2 years campaigning against the “terrible economic” numbers threatening to raise taxes on businesses. They won.”

Actually that was due to Rummy the Dummy mismanaging the Iraqi occupation to the point the country was tearing itself apart but nice try at rewriting history. And odd how you make no mention of Medicare Part D, NCLB, CFR or any of the other big government fail that a GOP controlled Congress pooped out.

[tsowellfan]

The chart provided in my post #243 is proof that the only one rewriting history is you.

[tsowellfan]

FlashBack: Nancy Pelosi: "Worst Economy Since Herbert Hoover"

[publana]

A voice of reason. Thank you.

[KantianBurke]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/08/politics/main2161309.shtml

Yeah. Iraq had nothing to so with it. - rolls eyes -

[tsowellfan]

A cBS link?

NO thanks

[KantianBurke]

- shrugs - If you’d like, a quick Google search will turn up plenty of articles from Fox News or NR laying out the same case. But you wouldn’t want to have your fantasy land disturbed now would you?

[cdcdawg]

All Mitt had to do was get out as many voters as the pathetic John McCain managed. All the talk about the 47% (looters), the “browning” electorate, the gender gap, and all of that is mostly noise. The Republican base stayed home. Mormon issue? RINO issue? Both? Something else? That question of why is of the utmost importance, and I have no doubt that the GOP’s collective brain-trust will get it wrong.

Again, the Republicans stayed home.

[tsowellfan]

The economic downturn started under Pelosi/Reid.

The stats show that.

I was no big fan of Bush. He had many faults. I'm not going to lay all of them out here because he is not the issue. Obama is President and continues to blame Bush for his economy (with the help of some republicans who feel that conceding that false narrative will somehow help them gain a Christie/Obama type relationship with democrats and win their vote).

It's not going to happen. You don't win by participating in a lie. Especially when that lie is created to beat the republicans whether they be RINOs, Conservatives, Constitutionalists, Tea Party or Birthers and yes Libertarians too and any other party that is NOT the democrat party.

This false Herbert Hoover charge was made DURING good economic times under President Bush and continued until they finally took control of both Houses which resulted in the economic situation we are in.

[tsowellfan]

I don’t need to Google this issue. I was here. I was watching it unfold. I was in agreement with 99% of the Freepers who were outraged that Pelosi was claiming that the economy which was at a 4.7% unemployment rate was the worst economy since Herbert Hoover. I watched other Freepers as they commented that this lady’s trying to manipulate a good economy to turn bad for political reasons. When you live it, you don’t need to Google it. But I can Google back-up to the facts I laid out but since I’m on FreeRepublic and not DU, USENET or Twitter I feel I should not have to. That’s YOUR job.

[dowcaet]

Karl Rove and Dick Morris have been exposed as the worthless hack punditry clowns that they are. I can’t believe both these guys were actually part of winning presidential campaigns.

[Feline_AIDS]

But how much of their female support is from single moms on welfare voting to keep the welfare coming?

Not that many. Most of the female support is from the low-information social-issues voter who believed the war-on-women narrative.

Most young women are gullible, and they really desire stability. They don't want it from a husband anymore, so they turn to Uncle Sam.

[dadfly]

finally after holding my tongue since the primaries.

romney was an incredibly weak candidate. the weakest of all of them.

my gosh, he couldn’t even get close to mccains 2008 totals. the simple reason, he was to the left of mccain!

[dadfly]

we even won down ticket with the romney boat anchor.

people i supported down ticket. bachmann, rothfus, barr, arpaio, ... got through. we even played a role in getting rid of stark “raving mad” with our guy pareja weakening him.

and as for west, i think senator west has a nice ring to it.

we can continue to fight no matter what the circumstances.

[D-fendr]

I agree with your post, except for this:

>> the leadership has foisted worthless presidential candidates on the party

I don’t feel like anyone was foisted on me. I never liked the field that ran, and the one I picked of the bunch, not enough others - on here and elsewhere - wanted him to win either.

We need some good conservative candidates, but I don’t know who. I don’t blame the party or the leadership for that.

[D-fendr]

Most people I talked to said “ there’s not much difference between them”

I think that's just as stupid.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

You were’nt talking to a conservative.You got played.