November 15, 2012

Another View of Romney's Loss

Carroll Andrew Morse

I don't agree with everything in this Robert Oscar Lopez election post-mortem from the American Thinker, but it's definitely a more interesting read than anything telling Republicans that electoral success is only attainable if they limit their message to promising thrifty and honest management of government designed by Democrats...

By now it's widely understood that all politicians are scum and that voting is a choice for the lesser of two evils. Nobody who's rational would have reason to believe that Mitt Romney's promises to cut the deficit would be more bankable than Barack Obama's long-forgotten promises to close Gitmo and scale back the use of drones. Yet Romney's love for the unborn was less convincing than was Obama's instinctual love for underdogs, the oppressed, the little guy, or whatever you call that class social justice theorists have dubbed "subalterns."

What happened? Twenty-twelve was, perhaps, a choice between mercy (Obama) and efficiency (Romney) in a lot of Americans' minds, and they asked themselves, "What does it profit a man to get a 4% unemployment rate and lose his love for the oppressed?" The question may sound naïve, but it nonetheless runs through people's minds. Republicans never bothered to ask the question, let alone answer it. And so Barack Obama got elected amid a burgeoning deficit and four years of unconscionable unemployment.

By now it's clear that "it's the economy, stupid" is not a timeless nugget of wisdom.

Rather, we ought to start saying, "It's got to be more than just economics, idiots."

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

I'm not sure I agree. Virtually all of the social media abuse the Republican Party took this election cycle was over its conservative social policies. Republicans hate women, Republicans hate gays, Republicans support rape, etc. These are the kinds of political memes and slogans that play on emotions and win elections, unfortunately. On the gay marriage issue, I'm not even completely sure they're entirely wrong.

Mitt Romney's blowout debate that sent him soaring in the polls was on economic topics. Most polls had him rated above Obama on economic issues and below Obama on social issues.

Most of the Democratic voters I know understand that markets are more efficient than top-down economic planning. Only the looniest progressives and Marxists dispute this basic principle, which has been widely accepted in economics for around 100 years now. I begin my potentially contentious in-person political debates with the following statement: if you agree that government shouldn't be investing in private companies, then we are already 70% in agreement. Maybe it could work for a candidate as well.

Posted by: Dan at November 15, 2012 11:03 AM

"Only the looniest progressives and Marxists dispute this basic principle, which has been widely accepted in economics for around 100 years now."

This may be true, but I believe his underlying basic premise still holds true... i.e. in the end the majority of voters are emotional voters.

Instead of voting with their logical side (fiscal conservative) and fighting the good fight when it comes to social issues, they "feel better" when they vote on social issues... but here's the strange part. By voting for let's face it.. a progressive, they are voting for big government.

Vote Dem and you get guaranteed HUGE government, and PERHAPS *some* of the social change you want.

Vote Rep (we're talking TRUE conservatives here, NOT RINOS) and you get SMALL government and PROBABLY some social issues you're going to have to fight for.

So people are more willing to "take the easy way out" on social issues despite the fact that there is an absolute guarantee that it's going to cost them fiscally.

Very strange indeed.

Where the hell did the notion of having a limited government (get out of everyon's way), thus allowing us serious and thoughtful debate on social issues, go to?

When did we decide they MUST be for ever linked?

Posted by: StuckHereinRI at November 15, 2012 11:29 AM

F*** Americans.
Let the progressives keep running things into the ground until the (inevitable) Greek/Spanish collapse.
5 years-10 years tops. No society in history has survived a permanent Debt-GDP ratio over 120%. We are at over 105% and will be over 120% in 3 years.
Case closed.

Posted by: Tommy Cranston at November 15, 2012 12:23 PM

More accurately, countries survive 120% GDP-Debt but live on as economic vegetables.

I don't wish for the collapse of the United States. I do think Rhode Island could probably benefit from a couple dozen more municipal bankruptcies. The state is a near-perfect case study in the failure of top-down/progressive economics.

Posted by: Dan at November 15, 2012 1:18 PM

""Romney's love for the unborn""

In a 1994 debate with Ted Kennedy, while pandering for left-wing votes
in the liberal state Massachusetts, Mitt Scissorhands RomneyCare said that a relative had died from botched illegal abortion, flipping Romney's stance in favor of legal access to abortion for all women.
Romney said "you will not see me wavering on that"

Romney added
'I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.' "

Kennedy added later "Romney is not pro-choice, he is multiple choice".. LOL

Romney believes in NOTHING..he has no core values...IMHO

Posted by: Sammy in Arizona at November 15, 2012 1:48 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Important note: The text "http:" cannot appear anywhere in your comment.