Friday, November 9, 2012

About That Presidential Election.....

Many years ago I attended a meeting where an economist was the keynote speaker. His opening line was, "I'm not a member of a major political party.  I'm a Republican."

Never has that line cut deeper than this week.  After all of the campaigning, the SuperPAC money, the advertisements, the blustery predictions, etc., the Rs have gone in reverse.

Their presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, seemed like he was qualified enough to be president.  Certainly qualified enough to defeat an economically-weakened Barack Obama.  So how did this happen?  Let a lifetime independent voter tell you.

If you listen to the Rs, they've got all sorts of reasons why they lost the presidency plus some senate seats.  The only correct reason is that the Rs don't have a big enough tent.  It's comprised of a declining base - whites, males, married females, social conservatives, and, um, that's about it.

Look at America.  It's becoming less white, less dependent female, less socially conservative.  Rs have to start appealing to those constituencies, or at least stop pissing them off.

But what are the conservative pundits framing as their next strategy?  To go even farther right!  They seem to believe that if they simply do a better job promoting their anti-secular, anti-immigration, anti-environment ideals, that we 'moderates' will be more likely to join them.

So, the Rs analysis of the problem is correct, but their solution is exactly wrong.  They think we independent voters don't understand them?  The problem is we understand them perfectly, and we don't like it.  Newsflash to Rs: We aren't going to like more of what we already don't like.

The crazy thing is, the Rs really weren't/aren't so far away from taking power.  Most independent voters are like America - socially liberal, but still fiscally conservative.  If the Rs would spend more time on the fiscally conservative message, and a lot less on the social issues, they'd be fine.

[This is a good time to note and give kudos to the states of Colorado and Washington for legalizing marijuana.  Talk about your trending social liberalism.  By the way folks, it's no big deal - they already have legalized alcohol, a more abusive and dangerous drug.  More about this in a future blog.]

There is plenty to dislike about the other non-major political party, a/k/a Democrats. As an independent, I think they're wrong on union support, wrong on expanded government, wrong on tax policy.  I matured (such as it is) in the 80s, during the Reagan revolution, and I actually believe in supply-side economics.

To a political independent like me, however, the other stuff matters more now.  It's encouraging to see WOITH politicians like Michele Bachmann, Steve King, and especially Bob Vander Plaats struggle so much (and in the latter case, outright lose) this election cycle.  Their message of hate, masquerading as social conservatism, has become the  millstone around their necks.

If they and the rest of the Rs want to appeal to today's independent voter, they need to go farther left, not farther right.

3 comments:

  1. Bill, if you're fiscally conservative and socially liberal -- you "should" be considered a "Libertarian" but if you vote Democrat over a moderate Republican Gov. who governed a liberal state as a moderate you are probably (wait for it)... a Democrat that doesn't want to take a stand/defend your true beliefs--thus, you hide behind the "Moderate" or "Independent" label. Demographics: Romney won independents, but lost single women huge, won married women, lost the 18-29 age group, hispanics/latinos, asians, and blacks in a huge way 70%+. White men had a lowered turnout vs 2008. Catholics voted for Obama over Romney even though Obama declared war on Catholics (continued hypocrisy of Catholics). The evil collectivist stuff is coming soon. Establishment Rs feel Romney was too moderate to win vs. Obama (lesser of two evils and proven leader vs. community activist). The country is going to wish that made the Romney choice. Romney couldn't beat excellent negative campaign that painted him as a rich old white guy, paired with the Obama lapdog media and scare tactics claiming that Romney wanted to control their "lady parts". The truth is nobody could have defeated that pandering "Santa Claus/Free Stuff" Campaign--especially when we have a generation of young people who aren't informed and have no work ethic. This country needs a strong third party "libertarians" keep the balance of power in check.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. G, in many aspects I agree with Libertarian thinking, but definitely not fiscally. Have you looked at their platform? I certainly don't support "the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution" etc. FYI, I think Romney would have been a fine president, he'd have governed as a moderate, after having to kiss up to the right wing to win the nomination. But the Republican Party has gone way too far to the right. They can't control the extreme elements of their party - instead the extreme elements control them. All of the statistics you mention simply confirm that fear nationally. Call me a Democrat if you want, but I'm not defined by party, or by what Fox News tells me to think. I'd rather have an uninformed generation (and you're correct about that) than I would a generation that lets crazy Rupert Murdoch tell them how they should be governed.

      Delete
    2. But seriously, G, thanks for commenting, I enjoy the intellectual debate!

      Delete