Sultan Knish/Daniel Greenfield Ping List (notification of new articles). FReepmail or drop me a comment to get on or off.
Posted on 11/07/2012 5:32:07 AM PST by 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.
Mitt Romney didn’t even get as many votes as McCain did!
That is the most shocking thing I just found out.
Not really.
For all that Mitt is personally honest and competent, he is part of the finance, deal-cutting economy, not the economy that builds things and delivers goods.
And if there is anything free market conservatives should know by now, it is that Wall Street is not their friend, and not an "ally" with which they should wish to be associated.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville
I believe that George Washington would have fared no better in this election than Mitt Romney. 50% of Americans want free stuff more than they want a constitutional republic.
I think this author nails it.
You can’t win by always playing defense.
With no offense you never score a touchdown.
Sure occasionaly you grab a fumble and run it into the end zone, but that is not a winning strategy to make it to the Superbowl.
SARAH PALIN 2016
Really. And what part did the state-run media — and even the GOP establishment — play in destroying those Tea Party candidates?
That is not the lesson the Stupid Party is going to take from this. Next candidate will likely be even worse, like a Bloomberg.
I agree, we need to send up ass-kickers as candidates, not the sing kumbaya bipartisan types. Romney kicked ass in the first debate, then he stopped and started talking about bipartisanship. Also, when dumb questions like birth control come up, Republicans need to out-and-out lie to dumb single women by saying “sure sweethart, whatever you want, baby.” - That’s the go-to statemtent in marriage isn’t it?
Exactly right. OReilly nailed it perfectly by saying the same thing. Our society has devolved into a takers society. People don’t want to work for anything when they can have it handed to them. They don’t realize it will eventually run out, but for now they will take what they can get. The small govt, fiscal conservative way of thinking is the minority and can not win an election. All we can do now is unite with like minded people and survive. The next 4 yrs and beyond will see the destruction of America.
Sultan pens another gem.
For all that Romney's personal integrity is impeccable, it is all too easy to portray him as one of the deal-cutters who helped screw up the economy in a big way.
I am sure this cost him millions of working and middle class votes.
LOL "Boehner and crew" will fold like an accordion trying to appease the Democrats. They may whine a little but they want to be invited to the DC Parties just like everybody else.
Unfortunately, you are so right. My soul hurts today.
I agree. There are contradictory memes at work here. Either: a.) Romney was not conservative enough, or b.) Demographics have overtaken us and takers outnumber losers. Both cannot be true. If 'a' is true, then the country is more conservative. If 'b' is true, then a more conservative candidate would have garnered even fewer votes.
I think 'b' is true. America embraces its God-king and does not want to hear about personal responsibility anymore.
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.
I thought Mitt ran a fine campaign. He DID take on Obama, and he DID run on a platform of taking away OBAMACARE...every damn banner ad I saw on the internet spoke about the repeal of that damnable piece of s***.
I think there IS some validity to the need to "reach out" to ethnic minorities--not to appease them, but to show them how Obamanomics is ruining their world. Sometimes people have to be persuaded.
Tea Party conservatives must put their foot down to the Republican leadership. Three times now, the leadership has foisted worthless presidential candidates on the party: Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. Never again...
..so please enlighten us as to which of the primary candidates could have done half as well as Mitt did...Gingrich? Couldn’t be elected dogcatcher. Palin? She might get 150 EV’s. Too shrill. Fumblemouth Perry? Santorum? Bachmann? The numerous close blue states (Virginia, Ohio, Wisconsin)would not have been so with anyone but Mitt running...
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.