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:
Feb '11
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
wmartin
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).
If you actually believe that then why aren't you voting for Obama?
I don't believe the economy is getting better, period. If the GOP is unwilling or unable to clear away the fog on the economy and other matters then it richly deserves to lose.
Shadowstats.com
Sep '10
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
-Newt Gingrich ?
Aug '10
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
Michael Tee
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? · 11 hours ago
I don't get what you're saying about "arguments from the left." For the record, I got my opinions about Newt being a slimy lobbyist from the right, especially TP Carney's corporatism column in the Washington Examiner and National Review. To the best of my knowledge the left isn't much attacking Newt on being a lobbyist but rather emphasizes things like "food stamp."
Apr '11
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
anon_academic
Michael Tee
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? ·
If we accept all the arguments of the left, we've already lost.
I'm in academia, what's your excuse? ·
I don't get what you're saying about "arguments from the left." For the record, I got my opinions about Newt being a slimy lobbyist from the right, especially TP Carney's corporatism column in the Washington Examiner and National Review. To the best of my knowledge the left isn't much attacking Newt on being a lobbyist but rather emphasizes things like "food stamp." ·
I've seen attacks from the left on the lobbying, but you're right that it's much less important to them. About the same priority as the fat jokes.
The big difference is that the right is offended by pro-Freddie Mac stuff, while the left supports it. In the general, you'd expect Obama's focus to be on the crony capitalism of the specific Medicare D inclusions. Gary Johnson would campaign about GSEs.
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
Wrong year. We already had our 1964 in 2008. Let's recap: so far, Obama's grown the federal share of GDP by a third, to 25 percent of national output; regulatory mandates now consume another 12 percent of GDP; he rammed through an unpopular health care law that puts another 16 percent of the economy under federal control. I'm up to 53 percent of GDP so far, and the president is just getting started. Remember, he's got a blueprint for "an economy that can last."
In 2012 are we going to elect a Nixon content to manage the Obama infrastructure better, or a Reagan committed to its demolition?
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
Franco: But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
-Newt Gingrich ? · 7 hours ago
"Men of few words are the best men."
Apr '11
Re: Election 2012: "Shame, eternal shame, and nothing but shame!"
Xennady
wmartin
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).
If you actually believe that then why aren't you voting for Obama?
I don't believe the economy is getting better, period. If the GOP is unwilling or unable to clear away the fog on the economy and other matters then it richly deserves to lose.
Shadowstats.com · 8 hours ago
For many of the same reasons I voted against Bill Clinton in my first Presidential election, even though the economy was going gangbusters. That one also gave me some painful experience in voting for milquetoast moderates, and RINOs, etc..