Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
As others here have noted, I'm obsessed with recent historical parallels. And to me, the big question is, is 2012 more like 1964, 1980, or 1996?
Here's how it lays out to me:
In 1964 a principled, articulate, but polarizing conservative challenger faced a big government, big spending corrupt liberal president and suffered an historic electoral defeat. It's romantic and sentimental among some of us to think of that drubbing as somehow honorable -- We stood for something! We held to our beliefs! -- but the cold truth is, pretty much everything rotten about the current liberal welfare state -- its political correctness, its obsession with race, its crackpot social engineering -- has its foundations in that terrible election, in that defeat, in that realignment towards big government nanny liberalism. It's not enough to say that Nixon won in 1968, or even that Reagan won in 1980 -- the ship of state had been forcibly and irrevocably turned to the left, and we've been paying for it ever since. Winning matters.
In 1980, a principled, articulate, but polarizing conservative challenger defeated a hapless, dithering liberal and took the helm of a leftward drifting country languishing in economic decline, reinvigorated the private sector, cut taxes, and defeated America's most implacable foe. In the early primary contests, he defeated an east-coast establishment moderate, and his subsequent successes in the Republican primaries prompted snickering in the White House, confidence in the Democratic establishment, fear among DC-based Republicans, and it wasn't until late summer 1980 that this controversial and full-strength figure started to win over the great middle of the electorate.
In 1996, a hapless, dithering, big government Republican mounted a half-hearted and pointless campaign to unseat a clever Democratic president in the midst of an economic recovery. He was successfully linked in the voters' minds to an unpopular and over-reaching Republican majority in the House of Representatives, and went down to a decisive defeat. 1996 wasn't a watershed year for the country. There was no realignment, no shift in the national direction. The leftward drift continued, though the next four years saw economic expansion -- which increased federal revenues and balanced the national budget -- and historic and effective welfare reform.
That's the question I'm asking myself, and I suspect that's the question a lot of us are asking ourselves.
Can Newt Gingrich sew up the nomination and appeal to the center -- as he must -- to win the general? Why not? Isn't that exactly what Reagan did?
Can Mitt Romney sew up the nomination and appeal to the center -- as he must -- to win the general? Why not? There are a lot of contests left to go in the Republican fight. But if he does, will he be able to usher in the realignment we all want? For that matter, can Gingrich?
Or will either of these men go down in defeat? And if they do, let's hope they fail like Bob Dole, and not spectacularly, like Barry Goldwater. 1964 was a very bad year.
In other words: If this is going to be Agincourt, are we the English or the French?
- Comment (47)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments:
May '10
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
Feels more like Little Big Horn...guess who's the egomanic with the big blonde hair
May '10
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
If you want to fail like Dole, go with Romney. If he wins he'll be a Bush 41 at best. But I don't think he can win.
Personally, I'd rather go with Newt. I think he can win. He is the best communicator sincce Reagan. But if he fails it will be more like 64.
Aug '10
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
Wait a minute, who is the "principled, articulate, but polarizing conservative" in this primary?
You can't possibly be referring to the guy who worked as a lobbyist for the GSEs?
Edited on January 25, 2012 at 3:54amDec '10
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
More like Ontario 2011. A hapless twit goes up against a well oiled machine and loses. Handed opportunity on a golden plate and dropped them.
And yes, everyone in the race is a hapless twit.
How many elections have been won by running against the media?
Oct '10
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
There is a fable concerning a trip across water, one creature riding upon the other to reach the other side, with a promise.
A promise is a promise, save a Politician cannot deny their nature or admit it. Otherwise, no one would carry them on their backs.
We have poor choices of travelling companions today.
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
I dunno. Mitt seems a lot like the Dolphin.
Sep '10
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
Rob is too polite to express what I've been saying for a month at least: if we go into the election with the candidates we have now, we will lose. None of them can beat Obama and the Democrat-media complex that is arrayed against us. None.
But if somehow the GOP does win, then we should truly say,
Mar '11
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
Sep '10
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
No, that's our current President. A more fitting player for the role of the Dauphin than any previous holder of the office.
Apr '11
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
1972. A President whose domestic policy is not particularly well-liked (but who most Americans respect on foreign policy) goes up against a splintered party that decides it would rather howl at the moon than nominate a viable candidate. Except that George McGovern is a much more honorable and appealing character than Newt Gingrich.
Edited on January 25, 2012 at 3:36amMar '11
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
Sep '10
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
Rob raises an excellent point: how badly will the GOP lose? Like Goldwater, or like Dole?
If we nominate Romney, I believe the loss will be like Bob Dole's, although with more vicious invective from the Left.
If we nominate Gingrich--who is so good at saying exactly what I want to hear--it's Russian roulette with five loaded chambers. We might win. But if we lose, we will lose badly. It could be worse than Goldwater.
Jul '10
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
Let's be blunt. If we lose, this country is screwed anyway because it means a majority of the voting populace would rather continue the failed policies that are leading us to insolvency rather than face up to economic reality. We're watching it happen in slow motion in Europe, and instead of learning from it, we're stubbornly following right behind. We cannot afford another go-along candidate who wants to tinker at the edges. We need someone who will be bold and articulate a different course to make this election about the future of the country. Romney is not that candidate, and I'm not sure Gingrich is either. Hello, discouragement.
Jun '11
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
Reminds of a parent being asked is the third child like the first or the second? Neither!
This one will be different than all of them.
The election of the independent thinker. Foreshadowed in SC. I think the great unwashed masses aren't going to blindly follow or put much stock at all in any strategist, attack ad or even their relative's advice.
Mitt or Newt or whoever else will trounce the over-his-head sitting president.
Apr '11
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
Terrell David: Reminds of a parent being asked is the third child like the first or the second? Neither!
This one will be different than all of them.
The election of the independent thinker. Foreshadowed in SC. I think the great unwashed masses aren't going to blindly follow or put much stock at all in any strategist, attack ad or even their relative's advice.
Mitt or Newt or whoever else will trounce the over-his-head sitting president. · 11 minutes ago
The economy is getting better, unemployment is getting better, and even at his worst, Obama only went down to the low 40's. Just a few decent news cycles and he is back above water. His base is rock solid, and permanent. The idea that Obama is getting "trounced" by anybody is absurd.
May '10
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
Obama's base has eroded from the giddy hope-and-change crowd to something more hard-core.
So the base is rock solid (kind of by definition, don't you think?), but a lot smaller.
Jul '10
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
The Geico gekko could beat Obama.
Jul '10
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
anon_academic: Wait a minute, who is the "principled, articulate, but polarizing conservative" in this primary?
You can't possibly be referring to the guy who worked as a lobbyist for the GSEs? · 2 hours ago
Edited 1 hour ago
If we accept all the arguments of the left, we've already lost.
I'm in academia, what's your excuse?
Apr '11
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
And let's not forget 1856.
Apr '11
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
All things be ready, if are minds are so.