Posted on 11/07/2012 10:34:16 AM PST by mojito
Yesterday was a comprehensive disaster. Here in Minnesota, to add a local perspective, not only did the state go for Obama–no surprise there–but the Democrats recaptured both houses of the legislature, and voters defeated two ballot initiatives, one on gay marriage and one on voter ID. Similar losses were sustained across the nation, although there were a few bright spots here and there. So yesterday’s defeat was not about a flawed presidential candidate or presidential campaign.
What lessons can we draw? To begin with, conventional political wisdom was upended in a number of ways. When a president runs for re-election, the campaign is a referendum on his performance; undecided voters break against the incumbent; it’s the economy, stupid. These and other familiar maxims can be consigned to the dustbin.
But there is a much more important proposition that, I think, was proved false last night: that America is a center-right country. This belief is one that we conservatives have cherished for a long time, but as of today, I think we have to admit that it is false. America is a deeply divided country with a center-left plurality. This plurality includes a vast number of citizens who describe themselves as moderates, but whose views on the issues are identical or similar to those that have historically been deemed liberal.
Decades ago my father, the least cynical of men, quoted a political scientist who wrote that democracy will survive until people figure out that they can vote themselves money. That appears to be the point at which we have arrived. Put bluntly, the takers outnumber the makers. The polls in this election cycle diverged in a number of ways, but in one respect they were remarkably consistent: every poll I saw, including those that forecast an Obama victory, found that most people believed Mitt Romney would do a better job than Barack Obama on the economy. So with the economy the dominant issue in the campaign, why did that consensus not assure a Romney victory? Because a great many people live outside the real, competitive economy. Over 100 million receive means tested benefits from the federal government, many more from the states. And, of course, a great many more are public employees. To many millions of Americans, the economy is mostly an abstraction.
Then there is the fact that relatively few Americans actually pay for the government they consume. To a greater extent than any other developed nation, we rely on upper-income people to finance our federal government. When that is combined with the fact that around 40% of our federal spending isn’t paid for at all–it is borrowed–it is small wonder that many self-interested voters are happy to vote themselves more government. Mitt Romney proclaimed that Barack Obama was the candidate of “free stuff,” and voters took him at his word.
The question is, can this vicious cycle ever be broken? Once we are governed by a majority that no longer believes in the America of the Founding, is there any path back to freedom and prosperity? The next four years will bring unprecedented levels of spending, borrowing and taxation. The national debt will rise to $20 trillion or more. When interest rates increase, as they inevitably must, interest costs will squeeze out other government spending. That might not be all bad, except that defense will go first. If Obama’s second term turns into a disaster, fiscal or otherwise, voter revulsion may return the Republicans to power. But that doesn’t mean that America will be saved.
To me, the most telling incident of the campaign season was a poll that found that among young Americans, socialism enjoys a higher favorability rating than free enterprise. How can this possibly be, given the catastrophic failure of socialism, and the corresponding success of free enterprise, throughout history? The answer is that conservatives have entirely lost control over the culture. The educational system, the entertainment industry, the news media and every cultural institution that comes to mind are all dedicated to turning out liberals. To an appalling degree, they have succeeded. Historical illiteracy is just one consequence. Unless conservatives somehow succeed in regaining parity or better in the culture, the drift toward statism will inevitably continue, even if Republicans win the occasional election.
This is not primarily the job of politicians, but politicians cannot escape it, either. I have been grumbling for a long time that Ronald Reagan was the last politician who made a real effort to teach the principles of conservatism to the American public. Since the 1980s, we have largely been coasting on his legacy. The prevailing assumption has been that America is a center-right country, and if Republican politicians run a good tactical campaign and get their voters to the polls, they will generally win. That strategy no longer works, and conservative politicians need to try much harder not just to appeal to conservative voters, but to help create new ones.
The stark question posed by the country’s unmistakable drift to the left is, does America have a future? Can we once again become a beacon of freedom, or will talented young Americans be forced to look elsewhere for opportunity? Barack Obama’s budget–the one that was too extreme to garner a single vote in either the House or the Senate–projects that in four years, we will have a $20 trillion debt. That debt will be paid off by a relatively small minority of our young people, the most productive. If you were in that category, and had to make a choice between staying in the United States and inheriting a debt that could well be $1 million or more, and starting fresh in another country, what would you do? And if you were an investor, where would you put your money? In the United States, where hopelessness reigns and where high unemployment and close to zero growth are now accepted as normal, or in a country with limited government and a dynamic, growing economy?
These are dark days, indeed.
No, he isn’t going to lower the debt...That’s why I feel for our children...At some point, the debt collector is going to call...and our children and grandchildren and their children are going to be forced to answer...and I can promise you, it will not be pretty when this happens...
As GWB told him when he first won. He will soon learn that somethings are beyond his control. For instance, those things the DINO/RINO Cult has agreed should be done. Syria for example. Which is why Romney and all the RINO's are running cover for the DINO's Obama/Hillary over Benghazi. The Tea Party and True Conservatives need to fight for a serious investigation of Benghazi and Impeachment if warranted.
Full Speed Ahead and Da#n the RINO's !
Just send me my ObamaChip. I’m assuming im-plantation is covered by obamacare?
Afraid you are right. Don't forget Russia.
The country as a whole is still center-right, but that doesn’t really matter any more. As long as you can get the majority vote in the large population centers that tend to go liberal, you will win the election.
“The answer is that conservatives have entirely lost control over the culture.”
They never had control over the culture. What the GOP did to its demise was connect cultural/social issues to fiscal/economic issues. And so down the fiscal cliff we go.
“Finally saw some of the Obama ads that ran here in Texas the final week or two before the election. And I have to admit, they kinda sounded good to this conservative. He had killed Osama Bin Laden. He saved the Auto companies. He was trying to solve the budget crisis from Bush.”
Correct.
This was NOT a liberal vs conservative election.
Romney did NOT run conservative, Obama did NOT run liberal.
The foreign policy debate showed not much difference.
Romney thought he could run on Obama’s lousy record and weak economy, but he came up against a dishonest and calculating campaign.
Romney would make a better President, but Obama ran a better campaign.
The social issue was not abortion but ‘birth control’.
Is there some conservative who might buy an island somewhere and create a conservative nation for people to emigrate to at some point?
I for one still have hope, but frankly, that may be a good idea.
No, he isn’t going to lower the debt...That’s why I feel for our children...At some point, the debt collector is going to call...and our children and grandchildren and their children are going to be forced to answer...and I can promise you, it will not be pretty when this happens...
Years...centuries from now, some group of people in a country are going to band togather and say they’ve had enough of the way they are being ruled...They have no voice in the governing body and they are going to revolt...They say they will model their new country, if they succeed, on that ancient country, America...
History will repeat itself...........
Right now the Supreme Court has four justices in their 70s (Scalia and Kennedy are both 76, Ginsburgh is 79, and Breyer is 74). In the next four years there's a good chance that Obama gets to replace as many as hree justices with young hard core lefties. And you know the Harry Reid senate will certainly allow just about anyone through the process. Justice Van Jones or Eric Holder? Could happen. Coupled with Kagan and Sotomayor, they will have a radical leftist SCOTUS majority for the next 25 years.
Some people didn't show up because Mitt wasn't reliable enough on abortion or guns? Hah, let's see how five or even six Obama appointed radicals justices vote over the next few years. And don't tell me about how Chief Justice John Roberts will moderate them, after his Obamacare joke ruling this prospect fails to comfort me; he's more likely to join them a'la Earl Warren. The 9th circuit is going to look solid and reasonable in comparison.
Stick a fork in the America of Reagan, we're in a different beast altogether now.
Good points. A typical RINO verses DINO election. They only differed on issues that do not really matter to RINO/DINO’s, since they are far above the law anyway. They agree upon the issues that matter to them and they typically have to go way out of their way to appear as if they disagree. For example, McCain attacking Obama on Benghazi, but agreeing with him on Syria. McCain is setting the narrative for the Benghazi situation. That we were attacked by Al Qaeda and not Syria/Iran. Al Qeada is just the miss direction from the truth. We were running weapons to the worlds worst terrorist organizations that were fighting in Syria to topple Assad. And the best way to miss direct that is to blame the attack on Al Qeada, one of the groups that was receiving the weapons.
Choice! Choice! What choice? The unwashed masses were given the same choice that we are always given which is whatever choice the two party elites want to give us.
George Bush and John Kerry was no choice, they were both two Ivy League educated snobs who agreed on more than disagreed on, such as No Child Left Behind, Medicare prescription drugs and blanket amnesty.
Bill O' Reilly knows nothing about choice other than whatever choice the elitists offer him because he is a typical MSM Ivy League educated snob who worshiped a piece of elitist political trash like Bobby Kennedy.
Barry Obama and Mittens Romney was NO choice. They were both Ivy League educated snobs and Barry was RIGHT about one thing Romney invented Obamacare before anyone knew who Obama was.
The voters HATED Obamacare so badly that they took historic revenge on the Democrat house members who passed it in the medterm election.
The unwashed masses were given the hope that it would be overturned but unfortunately the elitist snob by the name of Bush nominated one his elitist buddies by the name of John Roberts who screwed that pooch.
Choice! Choice! Don't give me that horse puckey, the last time the unwashed masses had a choice was when some populist by the name of Reagan beat the bejesus out of some effete elitist snob by the name of Mondale.
Since that Knox College grad won, the only two non east coast elite Ivy Leaguers to run for president were Bob Dole and John McCain who came to politics by way of their distinguished military service not by elitist Ivy League indoctrination.
That elitist Barry was taking the country the same direction that elitist Bush was, only difference was he was driving there a lot faster.
Romney would not have changed direction because his elitists masters who financed his campaign would be displeased if he attempted to reform the unfunded entitlemtents of the social welfare state, the subsidies and bailouts of the corporate welfare state, or to put the kabbosh on the globalist military adventures in nation building so much in favor of the military industrial complex. Romney would not have changed direction, he would have simply exited to a rest stop at the side of the road and promise us that we would change directions but wait awhile the time ain't right yet.
Now we have Obama who is a born and bred socialist and a rank disaster as a president. And he gets re-elected handily. The truth is a much higher percentage of Americans are now fond of socialism. They want and expect "free" stuff on the backs of producing Americans. We can run a conservative Pubbie in 2016, and see what happens. If we lose again with a genuine conservative, time for a split.
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
-The American Electorate
Agreed. Romney embodied conservative principles compromised.
So yesterday’s defeat was not about a flawed presidential candidate or presidential campaign.
Nonsense. The numbers tell a different story. It's not that we had MORE idiots going out to vote for Obama. It's that we had far fewer conservatives going out to vote for Romney. Because he was a lousy candidate, almost as bad as Obama.
When you have a lousy candidate at the top of the ticket, everyone else suffers all the way down the line. Quite a few potential senators, governors, state politicians, and congressmen lost because Romney failed to bring out the vote. And he failed really badly.
Absolutely right. Last night some of the talking heads were talking about battleground states, and I mentioned to my wife that it is now about battleground cities. I figure maybe 12-14 spread out in 6-8 states determine the election. All of these cities have large inner city populations, most have at least one college/university and many are government centers, all of which make them fertile ground for dems. This is why the GOP can still do well in House races, but fares less well in state wide races with national ramifications. When the election maps come out you will see in stark detail what I mean when you compare the extent of blue versus red geographical coverage in the important states we lost last night.
We also re-elected a strong GOP majority in the House. That’s certainly center-right. So, something else is at work here.
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.