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:
Apr '11
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
All things be ready, if are minds are so.
Apr '11
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
Ottoman Umpire
So the base is rock solid (kind of by definition, don't you think?), but a lot smaller. · 9 minutes ago
No, it is possible to lose one's base. And Obama's base is pretty large, larger than the Republican base. Since so much of it is based on identity politics, they will turn out for Obama no matter what (even though he has so plainly hurt them).
Oct '11
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
Spot on about 1964, Rob. Vietnam, the modern welfare state, etc. But there's no way Goldwater could have carried that one, after the Kennedy mystique and assassination.
The real turning point was Illinois and Texas in 1960. If Joe Kennedy hadn't bought Chicago for his boy, and Lyndon hadn't stolen Texas, then Nixon would have taken it. Imagine what would have been.
Dec '10
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
wmartin
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.
If that is so (and it may well be), who has a better shot at beating a resurgent Obama: the mechanical manager whose argument against Obama - that he's just in over his head - is completely undercut by improving economic data, or the ideologue who forcibly argues that even as the unemployment numbers are coming down, Obama is still leading America into deeper debt and division?
Dec '10
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
First Rob, I am a non-believer in deterministic History. Just because you mentioned three possibilities dosn't mean that something completely different can't happen.
I do endorse History as deep context. You have shown and analyzed three very interesting races. The problematic Goldwater and Dole races. Also, the triumphant Reagan race.
What I don't like is your underlying tone. You imply that we can control the outcome. I disagree. I have stated elsewhere and will state again that Gd is in control of the 2012 Presidential race. We can not choose to avoid Goldwater or Dole if Gd has already Judged us unfavorably. Also, we can not fail to gain a Reagon-like victory, if Gd want's it and is literally on our side.
Sorry to be so Mystical. Mysticism is different from irrationality. Mysticism relys on a belief in a Super-Rational being called Gd. It's just that Gd's logic is unattainable by us humble mortals (even pundits).
Edited on January 25, 2012 at 5:21amDec '10
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
Callista? Oh, EJ? I have a job for you!
Apr '11
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
With Mitt: more like 2004: A stiff, unlikable flip-flopper goes up against a dithering, but upbeat incumbent. Still, preferable to Newt.
Can we stop comparing Newt to Goldwater. Newt is articulate and polarizing - that's it. Newt's already one of the most unpopular politicians in America with a backlog of idiotic and controversial statements that have nothing to do with conservative principles. He will be destroyed by the press and a few zingers in an October debate will not save him. He has zero appeal to the vast majority of the electorate. Newt would be an absolute disaster, would drag the party down with him and his candidacy would severely damage the cause of conservatism.
Even if Newt starts out articulating conservative principles do you think he'll stick to them when he's down 20 points in September? What did he do when he was down against Romney? He turned to populist class warfare. At some point Newt will try to outdo Obama with some clever big government schemes, or whatever nonsense pops into his head.
Frankly, I'd rather draft Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin than Newt - both completely unelectable, but at least they're consistent.
Dec '10
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
There is a difference between 1964, 1980, 1996 and 2012.
In 1964, the US was coming off Kennedy's tax cuts and unemployment was falling from a 1961 peak of 7.1 to 4.8 on Election Day 1964.
In 1980, we were in the throes of stagflation. While Carter had brought unemployment down from 1975's 9.0 to a low of 5.6 in 1979, in 1980 it was ticking back up and was at 7.5 on Election Day 1980.
Clinton was on a good streak (in large part due to Newt!) and unemployment continually fell from 1992's peak of 7.8 to 5.4 on Election Day 1996.
Unemployment was 6.8 on Election Day in 2008. It peaked at 10.0 in October 2009. It's settled a little to 8.5 now, but there is a strong case to be made that any improvement is despite Obama, not because of him.
(Reagan inherited 7.5 percent unemployment in Jan. 1981, ran it up to a peak of 10.8 in Nov. 1982, and saw it fall back to 7.2 by Election Day in 2004, but he crushed inflation in the process.)
Dec '10
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
James Gawron:
Sorry to be so Mystical. Mysticism is different from irrationality. Mysticism relys on a belief in a Super-Rational being called Gd. It's just that Gd's logic is unattainable by us humble mortals (even pundits).
Certainly you know the story of Murray, who prayed every week that he would win the lottery. On his deathbed, he called out, "G-d, I was a faithful servant. Yet I didn't win the lottery even once. Didn't you hear my prayer?"
The Lord's voice booms from the heavens and He says, "I heard your prayer, Murray, but would it have killed to buy a lottery ticket even once?"
G-d may have a plan for us, but it is up to us to do the work in the temporal world to make his plan a reality.
Dec '10
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
wmartin
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. ...
You keep saying this and I think it is neither true nor helpful. Unemployment is down as a percentage because the labor force is shrinking. What has been done to correct some of the fundamentals? The housing market foreclosure rate is down? Yeah - clearing out the backlog, not because of any policy changes. Have foreclosures stopped in your neighborhood?
Look, I'm no economist, I just believe my experience even when the NY Times tells me my eyes are lyin'. No one is prospering in my circle. Mr. C took his pension early and although he's re-employed, he took a 25% pay cut. And he's not alone. My brothers in small business in Ohio were thriving up until about the last six months. Now, my brother says he can't get an appointment for a sales call. This economy will not be improving until it is growing. Reduced rates of decline aren't convincing to real voters in the real world.
Jan '11
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
What is all this whimpering and ringing of hands and gnashing of teeth?
Obama is the worst president ever, has done the greatest damage to this country ever, and both are unambiguously obvious. Let's have some faith that the American electorate, because of that, will do the right thing and elect any candidate that the Republicans nominate.
If not, then Pogo was right: We have met the enemy, and it is us.
Dec '10
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
If we stipulate that Mitt is indeed stiff, unlikeable and a flip-flopper and that Obama is dithering but upbeat...
... in what scenario does the former beat the latter? The only thing that distinguishes the two characters you've described is that fewer people will like the first guy.
Dec '10
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
Western Chauvinist
wmartin
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. ...
You keep saying this and I think it is neither true nor helpful. Unemployment is down as a percentage because the labor force is shrinking. What has been done to correct some of the fundamentals? The housing market foreclosure rate is down? Yeah - clearing out the backlog, not because of any policy changes. Have foreclosures stopped in your neighborhood?
As Mitch Daniels pointed out, a lower percentage of working-age people went to work today than did at any time in recent history. And a huge percentage of young people who need to get onto the first rung of a career ladder can't find anything to grab onto.
Apr '11
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
Anon: What is all this whimpering and ringing of hands and gnashing of teeth?
Obama is the worst president ever, has done the greatest damage to this country ever, and both are unambiguously obvious. Let's have some faith that the American electorate, because of that, will do the right thing and elect any candidate that the Republicans nominate.
If not, then Pogo was right: We have met the enemy, and it is us. · 1 minute ago
I have had faith in them before and they have let me down numerous times.
I'm trying to guard against being stung again.
Apr '11
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
Western Chauvinist
You keep saying this and I think it is neither true nor helpful. Unemployment is down as a percentage because the labor force is shrinking. What has been done to correct some of the fundamentals?
Just my reading of the stats on consumer confidence, the jobs numbers, the stock market, and the weekly unemployment application numbers (which had a massive drop last week).
Look, I am by nature a pessimist, sometimes too much so . Whenever I think things are going well, I do make an effort to ask if I am just telling myself a pretty lie. I feel that much of the boosterism of Newt is people making up a story to ease the pain, and projecting their own thoughts onto the voters.
I don't think it is irrational to think that we are finally too far gone in government dependency and demographic change to reverse course. American exceptionalism is over; that moment in time is gone. But people can get used to almost anything, and I think they will have just enough good news this year to justify, in their own minds, an Obama vote.
Edited on January 25, 2012 at 5:58amApr '11
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
If Mitt Romney does sew up the nomination, appeal to the center, and win, it will be the first time a moderate Republican has done so since Eisenhower --- and the third time a moderate Republican was elected president since Howard Taft in 1912. (Nixon, for all his flaws, was substantially more conservative than Mitt Romney).
I'm not optimistic, especially given how poor a campaigner Romney is showing himself to be.
Apr '11
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
Or 1872 or 1896.
Jun '11
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
Also 2008 - "...a hapless, dithering, big government Republican mounted a half-hearted and pointless campaign..." Sarah Palin was the only person who seemed to try to play the role of Henry V.
Or 1992, a hapless, dithering, big government Republican mounted a half-hearted and pointless campaign..." He managed to inspire Ross Perot and throw the election to Clinton, though.
How does information like the Rasmussen Daily Presidential Poll pont to anything promising? It has consistently shown that 38-43 percent of the electorate "Strongly Disapprove" of Obama's performance whereas only 18-22 percent ever "Strongly Approve". At least based on that, the part of the electorate that is permanently settled for or against the incumbent will overwhelmingly go against.
"Once more unto the breach dear brothers."
Apr '11
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
Or 1912.
Mar '11
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
If it's Mitt, then it comes down to his VP choice. If he picks one who is aligned with tea party ideas and has honor and integrity then any lead Obama might have will close dramatically leading up to the election. That is if Newt can somehow be convinced to go on another Greek vacation and not say a word. Can almost see him opining like Peggy Noonan on the unelectability of the the Republican ticket.
But a point Ann Coulter has been making is that if Newt's the candidate then it puts the House and Senate and many other elections in serious jeopardy.