I think we are missing a larger point. We cannot cede the entire Northeast and Pacific West and remain viable. We were not defeated on economics, we were defeated on the social issues. And, as much as I hate to say it, Obama remains a powerful figure to the weak-mined among us. We have to eschew some positions to (read: opposition to gay marriage) in order to be viable. We can oppose abortion, but we must promise not to affect that liberty. We can’t be moral absolutists, Christian only, or we will remain a minority party. I say all this with a heavy heart. We must embrace freedom fully and leave moralizing to the pulpit. Let the people decide on their own morality.
I don’t think that was it. I think, if anything, we didn’t offer enough of a vision with enough confidence.
Romney said virtually nothing about either gay marriage or abortion, both of which he actually supported when he was governor, so it doesn’t sound to me as if the liberals could have held that against him. Your thinking was precisely the thinking of the GOP when they selected him: get somebody not known for strong “social positions,” somebody who is not a Christian, and somebody who won’t criticize the cultural status quo or Obama personally. The election was supposed to be about the economy, and Romney was supposed to come across as somebody who was morally neutral and pragmatic and knew how to make money.
And even though, theoretically, the economy was the concern of Americans, Romney did well only on those few occasions when he showed a flash of difference and indicated that he did indeed have values and care about something outside of getting elected. But in general Romney offered no alternative vision and he gave people no rallying point. He rarely opposed Obama and came across as so bland that he never galvanized the base, yet while he himself never said anything that could give the Dems ammunition, they still managed to portray him as somebody who was a bumbling, prissy, woman-hating, white racist meanie.
This, by the way, is not blaming Romney for the loss: the blame goes to the strategy, which was a product of his Massachusetts campaign managers, who obviously decided that the Scott Brown approach was the best, that is, portray him as somebody who was value-free and identical to his Dem opponent, except a little better about finances.
I agree that a preachy type (Santorum) wouldn’t have done well, but maybe it should actually have been someone such as Gingrich himself, who has values that do not come from the all-knowing state (the only kind of “values” one will be allowed in the future) and has the intellectual fire-power and passion to defend them and even project them positively. But the GOP-e was scared of him, and I think until the GOP realizes that the only way they will win will be by offering an entirely different vision of life in the US, through a confident, positive, intelligent spokesman, we’re going to continue to play catch up and we’re going to continue to lose.