We Need to Make the Argument
Mitt Romney ran a carefully calibrated presidential campaign, single-mindedly targeting swing voters with the message that Obama was a great guy who failed to deliver the goods, so why not vote Republican and hope for change.
In contrast, Barack Obama made a sweeping moral argument: America is moving forward toward a fairer society where everybody has a shot; in order to finish the journey we must reject Romney’s plan to return us to the greed and selfishness of the Bush years; in particular, we cannot afford the tax cutting and lax regulation that caused the recent financial crisis.
Oh, and in case you missed it: Osama bin Laden is dead.
The Left has a built-in persuasive advantage in any campaign: Any premises left unstated on the stump are fully baked into the popular milieu through the tireless mediation of teachers, comedians, pop singers, businessmen, journalists … you name it.
The typical response from the Right—particularly establishment Republicans—is to first bemoan the unfairness of our left-leaning cultural predisposition, and then ignore it, preemptively discarding the counterargument. It’s so very difficult, you see; we might alienate women and Hispanics; those ideas mainly appeal to old white men; and so on.
So having ceded the commanding heights of worldview and language to the Left, the candidate of the Right is left to tinker at the margins. Under these conditions it is surprising that Romney came as close to victory as he did.
Let’s start with a glittering example: Barack Obama endlessly repeated the line that Mitt Romney would return us to the failed policies that brought us to the brink of global financial ruin in 2008; as though a five-percentage point difference in the top marginal income tax rate marked the divide between prosperity and calamity.
Yet I never heard anybody in Republican campaign-land gainsay any of this.
Even under the time constraint of a televised debate, it would be simple to point out the flourishing of crony capitalism under the coercive umbrella of the Community Reinvestment Act, abetted by government-sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were led by assorted Democrat politicos-turned-executives who got fantastically rich pumping up the sub-prime mortgage market. All this with the grateful assistance of the usual suspects from the rent-seeking wing of the private sector.
For another example, it is seemingly everywhere noted in the run-up to the Fiscal Cliff that universal peace, prosperity, and balanced budgets prevailed under the Clinton-era income tax rates, so why all this Sturm und Drang from elected Republicans hell-bent on safeguarding the interests of the top one percent?
Again, nobody on our side bothers to point to the elephant in the room: Obama's runaway spending. Our brief moment of fiscal rectitude under President Clinton resulted from federal outlays falling to 18% of gross domestic product as against rising to 24% of GDP under the Obama program of budget-by-continuing-resolution. And if the Left insists on calling out Clinton's income tax increase, shouldn't the Right mention his substantial capital gains tax cut?
However, the most troubling omission from our side in recent months is the absence of a consistent moral argument made in favor of individual liberty. We need to promote an alternative worldview, not just a different tax code.
An economic system run by free people and free markets is morally superior in every respect to President Obama's government-directed version, which favors the well-heeled and politically connected. Ironically, Obamanomics creates the very social conditions the president inveighs against: A nation of haves and have nots, locked in unending conflict.
Far from creating the financial crisis, limited constitutional government, established to secure God-given natural rights, resulted in the fairest, most prosperous, and most ethnically diverse civilization in world history. This is the heritage we seek to preserve.
In order to win the argument, we first must make it.
- Comment (48)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (8)
Comments:
May '12
Re: We Need to Make the Argument
Good points, all. Another statement I longed to hear countered: "...blah blah blah pay their fair share..." Why wasn't anyone pressing back on this point? What is a fair share? Do the drastically higher tax rates payed by the evil millionaires and billionaires constitute something that could conceivably be called fair?
And the anemic defense of low capital gains tax...double taxation is not difficult to explain.
Jun '10
Re: We Need to Make the Argument
George Savage:
In contrast, Barack Obama made a sweeping moral argument: America is moving forward toward a fairer society . . . .
Why do we not challenge the liberal definition of fairness? This is the way children argue when they don't get their way: "It's not fair!" As I understand it fairness is one part justice and one part mercy. But with liberals it's all mercy and no accountability.
Oct '10
Re: We Need to Make the Argument
Thomas Sowell agrees.
Sep '10
Re: We Need to Make the Argument
George Savage:
Far from creating the financial crisis, limited constitutional government, established to secure God-given natural rights, resulted in the fairest, most prosperous, and most ethnically diverse civilization in world history. This is the heritage we seek to preserve.
No argument from me. The only problem I see is that GWB's policies where a lot closer to Obama's than they were to limited constitutional government principles. If Romney had started out apologizing for the mess bozo Bush and his Republican lackeys made and then pointed out Obama had proceeded to put those policies on steroids he could have run against the Bush/Obama economy. On second thought he could not have done that for he endorsed most of the bonehead policies of Bush. The moderate me-too-ism that the Republican party has been practicing the last two decades just is not a winner. Even when they get elected they screw things up.
Don't worry things will probably get real bad sometime in the next few years and Republicans will have another chance. This time they may actually try limited constitutional government. I seriously doubt it, but there is a chance they might.
Oct '10
Re: We Need to Make the Argument
I disagree. In order to win the argument, we first need a forum, a means, to deliver our message directly to the American people. Without that, our "making the argument," whatever it is, will be little different from the tree falling in the proverbial woods.
Jun '12
Re: We Need to Make the Argument
Drusus: Good points, all. Another statement I longed to hear countered: "...blah blah blah pay theirfairshare..." Why wasn't anyone pressing back on this point? What is a fair share? Do the drastically higher tax rates payed by the evil millionaires and billionaires constitute something that could conceivably be called fair?
And the anemic defense of low capital gains tax...double taxation is not difficult to explain. · 21 minutes ago
....and the folly of the zero sum economy. If the ads start running tomorrow to tell the voting masses how this works, I will send a check to help fund them.
Jul '12
Re: We Need to Make the Argument
Jul '12
Re: We Need to Make the Argument
Yes, exactly right. Romney explained nothing and sought to steer clear of any sharp contrast between left and right. This was foolish and fatal for his campaign. I came to doubt that Romney is as smart as reputed. Is he only a financial mechanic who is unable to view the world philosophically and ideologically? It really appears so. Devastating when faced with an opponent who was fomenting leftist community organizing slogans in order to create a "them vs us" consciousness.
Edited on November 16, 2012 at 3:48amI really want this colossal failure of intelligence in the establishment experts to be the real lesson of this wastage of a billion dollars.
Mar '11
Re: We Need to Make the Argument
Oh this is glorious. For the last week I've feared the delusional excuse makers would win the day. But today Ricochet has been all about victory. #winning
May '10
Re: We Need to Make the Argument
George Savage:
...
The typical response from the Right—particularly establishment Republicans—is to first bemoan the unfairness of our left-leaning cultural predisposition, and then ignore it, preemptively discarding the counterargument.
...
Yet I never heard anybody in Republican campaign-land gainsay any of this.
Again, nobody on our side bothers to point to the elephant in the room: Obama's runaway spending.
...
However, the most troubling omission from our side in recent months is the absence of a consistent moral argument made in favor of individual liberty. We need to promote an alternative worldview, not just a different tax code.
...
In order to win the argument, we first must make it. · · 1 hour ago
Maybe if the time and effort the conservative punditocracy (not a few of whom appear on Ricochet regularly and who have been bemoaning Obama's reelection) and Republican elites spent whining, complaining, carping, and kvetching generally about everything Romney said and didn't say, did and didn't do were spent making these cases, and rebutting the Left the outcome would have been different.
Let's see if 2014 and 2016 are any different, if there's any point to it by then.
Apr '11
Re: We Need to Make the Argument
I respectfully disagree. In case you haven't noticed, we're way beyond arguments, reasoning and logic. We are experiencing the consequences of at least three generations of Marxist brainwashing—I'm talking about the educational and cultural reprogramming of the American people. The past election has proven that at least 50% of the American voting population cannot come to sensible conclusions in the interests of defending themselves, their families, their communities or their country—they not only lack the mental wherewithal to correlate their rapidly declining circumstances with the current administration's policies, they honestly and truly believe that these policies are going to make things better! Talking about "winning the argument" is a recipe for sure failure. I don't know what it will take to rescue the sinking ship America—the sad reality is that it's probably already too late.
UPDATE: I'd like to slightly moderate my comments above by saying that if there is any hope of pulling America back from the brink, making the argument is certainly a necessary criteria, but it is far from a sufficient one (continued...).
Edited on November 16, 2012 at 5:24amMay '12
Re: We Need to Make the Argument
Alas, I see at least two hurdles to be overcome.
1) Republicans and conservatives in general, do not have a "unified" argument that we can all agree on. It seems to me we have become a bit too "uncomfortable" with each other; tea party vs establishment, social conservatives vs fiscal conservatives, libertarians vs big government republicans etc. Until we get our house in order, there is no argument to be made. Mitt's platform was a muddled mix of contradictions.
2) In order for argumentation to affect voter's choices one has to assume that voters make choices based on logical arguments. At least that the 10-15% of voters that decide the outcome of an election do. I don't think they do. I think most people no longer understand the arguments for America, or they no longer care. I think most people respond primarily to what a politician will do for them.
Which ultimately leads me to conclude that this is not a winnable fight. We have been losing for decades, and will continue to. The fight needs to shift away from the Federal level, because the only way to win there is to become like them.
Re: We Need to Make the Argument
I agree on every point. We must, as you say, make the moral argument for liberty and promote a worldview, not just a tax code. Romney talking points focused on jobs, jobs,jobs right through the convention. But, in the fall, he started to talk foreign policy in terms of both strategy and principles and to express broader ideas about American government. Some of his late campaign speeches were inspiring and dealt with limited government and American ideals.. Why did he wait so long? I saw him as less of a Republican "establishment" guy toward the end - too late.
Apr '11
Re: We Need to Make the Argument
(continued...) There's no point in trying to make the argument until we've established conditions where by people are receptive to the argument and do not reject it out of hand. Again, I don't have any answers, but given the degeneracy of American society and it's institutions, I'm not optimistic.
Edited on November 16, 2012 at 5:10amMay '12
Re: We Need to Make the Argument
As Bill Whittle has been saying since the Romney loss, Romney did not make the argument because he did not seem to believe it.
We need to decide what we believe in before we can make any argument. And more importantly, we need to stop buying the opposition's argument.
If people want to vote Liberal or Democrat, there are plenty of those already. There is no need for "Moderate" Republicans.
May '10
Re: We Need to Make the Argument
Dr. Savage, can't you run?
I promise to give money to a Savage the Senate campaign. I will fly to California and knock on doors.
May '10
Re: We Need to Make the Argument
I used to say "It's midnight on the Titanic." Now it's more like 12:30 a.m. [The Titanic hit the iceberg at 11:44 p.m.]
If you listen you may hear "Nearer My God To Thee" in the background (until the ACLU has it shut down).
I suppose we could try to cobble some lifeboats together by inflating and lashing together state-supplied free condoms.
Jul '10
Re: We Need to Make the Argument
I disagree George. It is not about making "the argument."
Mitt won "the argument." The economy sucks and Obama hasn't fixed it.
The problem is that Obama blunted that (successful) attack by attaching much of the stigma to GWB. If anything, the lesson from this election is that to unseat the incumbent, the challenger must attack on multiple fronts.
I thought a single-minded devotion to the primary concern of voters was the best path to victory. I was wrong. But I don't think the answer is a philosopher-in-chief. Rather, it is an offensive coordinator who mixes play-action with the running game.
Apr '11
Re: We Need to Make the Argument
Nick Stuart
I suppose we could try to cobble some lifeboats together by inflating and lashing together state-supplied free condoms. · 3 minutes ago
Hahahaha...wouldn't that be the ultimate irony!
May '12
Re: We Need to Make the Argument
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TuL41ohlfZY
Bill Whittle, "Where Do We Go Now"
Palaeologus: I disagree George. It is not about making "the argument."
Mitt won "the argument." The economy sucks and Obama hasn't fixed it.
The problem is that Obama blunted that (successful) attack by attaching much of the stigma to GWB. If anything, the lesson from this election is that to unseat the incumbent, the challenger must attack on multiple fronts.
I thought a single-minded devotion to the primary concern of voters was the best path to victory. I was wrong. But I don't think the answer is a philosopher-in-chief. Rather, it is an offensive coordinator who mixes play-action with the running game. · 5 minutes ago