I have often thought that the 2012 Presidential Campaign began precisely at 10:57 PM on November 4, 2008, which was the precise moment that the 2008 election was called for Barack Obama. From that moment onward, all poltical activity in this nation--every speech, every debate, every bill, every congressional primary, every governors race, every soundbite, every news report on every network, every book that has been written, every newspaper article, and every poltical blog post (including mine), and every debate over a kitchen table or a neighborhood bar--has been a pawn in the chess game of November 2012. So with that in mind, it is understandable that we would look at the Christine O'Donnell situation in Delaware (one of the most interesting poltical stories I've seen) and see if we could draw some inferences towards 2012.
The biggest story of the O'Donnell-Mike Castle primary ended up being the debate over "pragmaticism vs. ideology" that everybody up to and including Charles Krauthammer and Karl Rove ended up getting involved in. The Republican primary in Delaware was the classic case of principled Conservative outsider who has little chance of winning the general election (at least as far as conventional wisdom would be concerned) vs. the Moderate insider who--for all of his faults (including voting for impeachment proceedings of George W. Bush)--has a better chance (again, in terms of conventional wisdom) against a Democratic candidate who is, of all things, a self-described Marxist. O'Donnell (the outsider, and darling of true Conservatives and Tea Party members) is the more Conservative candidate, but Mike Castle has the "better chance" of winning the general election (or so we were told). Therefore, there were voices--pretty loud voices--within the GOP making the argument that we must vote for Castle in order to insure a Republican Congressional majority.
At that point, the philosophical question of "victory vs. ideology" was raised. Should Conservatives sacrifice some of their Conservatism only to win elections? My view was that the answer to the question is a clear "No!" To many in the Conservative movement--myself included--the Big Tent/Go along to Get Along/Appeal to Everybody/Typical Polticians who have plagued the GOP for the last 20 years are a significant part of the problems that America faces, nearly as much so as the Democratic Party. In short, the appeal to the middle is how we got candidates like John McCain and George W. Bush among many others--guys who could get elected, but couldn't (or wouldn't) advance true Conservative values in government and society. To many of us on the Right, we're sick of hollow victories by moderates who tell us what we want to hear at campaign time, only to reach across the aisle once they are in office and stab us (and the American People) in the back.
In other words, we are no longer interested in a "Republican" majority if the only way we can get it is to put "Spineless Moderates" in office who will spend their entire term undercutting the majority of what we stand for. In a race between one of those "Rinos" and a Liberal Democrat, it's pretty much "six of one, half a dozen of the other".
So the voices of the growing Conservative movement was clear in Delaware--we're willing to back the more Conservative candidate, even if we potentially have to sacrifice a short-term goal of winning an election. We're in it for the long haul, focusing on the long-term goal of getting our nation back onto the right track financially, philisophically, and morally, rather than the short-term goals of winning an election.
In the wake of the Delaware primary and the ensuing questions of "vicrtory vs. ideology", I realized that I needed to re-think some positions I had taken on a potential Presidential run by Sarah Palin in 2012. Previously, in converstions I've had with various people as well as on some message boards, I had stated that while I feel that Sarah Palin would do the best job as President of any potential candidates that are currently out there, I have doubts that she could win the election. Therefore, I had stated that the GOP really needs to look in another direction for their 2012 candidate. I arrived at this conclusion through a combination of sheer mathematics, an understanding of human psychology, and good old-fashioned common sense. We all are aware that Obama won in 2008 based mainly off of the huge turnout that he gained within some key groups--and I feel he will have a difficult time replicating this same level of turnout in the same key areas. Obama won in 2008 because of turnout among urban voters, youth voters, and suburban middle-class white voters. Of those three groups, I believe Obama will have some difficulty with two of them in 2012, barring anything unforseen and drastic. Obama will certainly win the urban vote as strongly--and with nearly as much turnout--as he had in 2008..so I think we can concede that group of voters to him. However, I don't think he will be able to inspire the near cult-like following from the youth voters as he did in 2008. He'll win them in terms of percentage, but I don't think he'll get the high level of turnout that he had before--mainly because some youth voters will see through the sham that his 2008 campaign was, others will (through some life experience) will determine that Liberalism isn't all it's cracked up to be and switch their poltical allegiances, and still others will be so dissapointed that the "rainbows and unicorns" promised by the Obama 2008 campaign never came about, and they'll simply stay home. Likewise with the suburban whites--many within this group turned out in 2008 because of a combination of restlessness with "business as usual" government, and the appeal of a "historic" election. However, in 2012, Obama can't play the "historic election of the First Black President" card again--and all of those votes he got that were for that reason alone will have to be re-earned. Many of those within this group who voted for Obama out of some sense of vague "Change" are now having buyers remorse, and don't like the "Change" that they've sen (in particular, Obamacare). Therefore, I can't imagine Obama getting large turnout in his favor from this group as he had in 2008.
So as you can see, Obama cannot win an election with low or moderate voter turnout. With that in mind--and understanding that it would be a herculean task for Obama to replicate the huge voter turnout that he inspired in 2008, even in the best of circumstances--2012 should be an election that is there for GOP taking. The key is to keep the huge voter turnout on the Democratic side from taking root, which shouldn't be terribly hard given the current infighting, apathy, and dissapointment that we see in the American Left.
And this is what brings us to the Sarah Palin Conundrum--my one misgiving about Sarah Palin is that the American Left (and a good deal of the Independants) hate her so much that I fear they will come out to vote against her, when they might not come out to vote otherwise. Despite the fact that Sarah would make a better President than any other current GOP candidate out there, I have always feared that she would have the most difficult time winning, as she might inspire higher turnout from those who would vote for "anybody but Sarah". As a result, I've said throughout the last several months that we on the Right should concentrate on potential candidates other than Sarah.
However, in the light of the Christine O'Donnell race, I'm starting to re-think this position. Should I not back Palin simply because of fears of "electablity", despite believing that she is the best possible candidate? If so, am I falling into the same trap that GOP leadership was trying to lead Conservative into in Delaware? Don't get me wrong, I want Barack Obama out of the White House in 2012 (Hell, I'd prefer to have him run out of the country period--but I'll take "out of the White House"). However, in my haste to end the tyrannical reign of "King Barack I", I may have overlooked the possibility of a Moderate Republican gaining the office in 2012. Would this be much better than an Obama second term? I'm not sure that it would be.
The constant gaffes of Obama and the Left over the last two years have provided Conservatives with a great opportunity to not only re-take power, but more importantly the opportunity to re-educate and re-acquaint the American people with the Conservative poltical philosophy, so that it might take root, grow, and prosper for decades long beyond the 2012 election. Now, if a truly Conservative candidate emerges who is more "electable" than Sarah Palin, then I believe we should go that direction with the GOP nomination. However, if no such candidate emerges, then I no longer feel we should "accept" a moderate candidate just to insure a 2012 win. It was the moderate Republicans who had nearly as much to do with the mess our nation is in as the Democrats did--letting them back into office would be almost as big of a mistake as allowing a second term for Obama. If Sarah Palin turns out to be the only "ideologically pure" Conservative out there, then we must get behind her, and do WHATEVER IT TAKES to make sure she wins, even if it is more of an uphill climb to get her there.
Being a "Republican" is no longer good enough for America. An American President must be Conservative above all else...otherwise they are not fit to serve, regardless of if an (R) or a (D) is at the end of their name.
No comments:
Post a Comment