This is odd. A Ph.D., a former Bush 41 presidential speechwriter and twice a U.S. delegate to the United Nations, and a spokesperson for Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee, Janice Shaw Crouse, just wrote one of the single best pieces I have read expressing my tremendous frustration with the GOP. It is a must read. A few snippets…
It boiled down to, according to Senator Santorum, essentially surrendering the issue of our fundamental freedoms — which is not likely to be acceptable to Tea Party activists, who are credited with enabling the Republican takeover of the House in 2010. Mr. Romney blew off the former senator’s concerns: “It’s not worth getting angry about.”
Such a blasé response was seen as evidence that establishment Republicans lack a strong conservative core and as proof that they don’t get the underlying reasons for the drubbing that the Democrats took in 2010. Worse, Romney’s throwaway remark seemed to emphasize the vast divide between country-club Republicans and the hurting, angry electorate who have seen their savings disappear and had their homes foreclosed, and who see the millstone of $16 trillion in debt diminishing the futures of their kids and grandkids.
…
The anger of Main-Street Americans turned white-hot when it became increasingly clear that ObamaCare mandates taxpayer funding of abortion, and then the Obama administration issued a federal mandate requiring coverage of abortion drugs, sterilization, and all FDA-approved contraceptives — including those that are abortifacients — by virtually all employers. Forcing faith-based institutions to provide these services violates their religious convictions and takes away “conscience clauses” — a radical intrusion of government into religious liberty. Voters saw a government that had already intruded into areas that were previously private and inviolate now forcing faithful believers to betray their values, beliefs, and consciences on central tenets of their faith.
…
And let’s face it. The GOP grassroots voters are not just angry at the radical left; they are angry at the go-along-to-get-along, country-club Republicans who are hung up on the power that big government confers and the spoils that go with it. Recent history indicates to voters that the establishment GOP lacks the stomach to stand up for conservative principles and fight for conservative policies — beginning with a balanced budget that addresses the fiscal crisis, government expansion, and runaway entitlements, as well as a determination to repeal ObamaCare and its inevitable health care rationing and skyrocketing health care costs.
February 2, 2012 at 4:34 am
http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/the-catholic-vote-ron-paul-or-rick-santorum/
February 2, 2012 at 5:06 am
I actually think this is dead wrong.
The argument (if I understand it correctly) is that the 2010 wave was driven off of a deep reservoir of constitutionalist conservative principle, and that Romney, whose "value proposition" is that he's a smart technocratic executive, fails to see that.
Sorry, but I just don;t see it. I think 2010 was a big year for the Rs because the President was a D and the economy was in the toilet. Suggesting that the electorate was fired up about the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate is, it seems to me, post-hoc rationalization by strict-constructionist conservatives.
Why do I think this? Because its simply implausible to me that a country that elected Obama by a large margin in 2008, and that didn't seem to have a particular strong passion for small-government conservatism in the years leading up to 2008, suddenly in 2010 was swept by a wave of small-government conservatism. Populations don't change that quickly.
There are two broad reasons why one might dislike Obama. 1) You think he's ideologically wrong on the issues. 2) You think he's a sh!tty manager of the executive branch of the government.
It seems to me that Obama is VERY vulnerable on #2. And Romney is well positioned to challenge him on this front. But I just can;t see how #1 will be a huge liability for Obama in a country where there has been very little grass-roots support to limit the power of the federal government over time.
I think a lot of conservatives are deluding themselves when they interpret a big win in 2010 as evidence that the American people, broadly speaking, reject Obama's approach to governance. I think the American people reject 10% unemployment, and that's that.
Now, I myself am a small government conservative. So I'm very happy at the prospect of Obama getting the boot. But I just don;t kid myself into thinking that the reason I dislike Obama is the same as the reason that the median voter dislikes Obama.
February 2, 2012 at 3:22 pm
To Anonymous:
Obama ran on tax cuts and limiting the power of government period. He lied, but too many bought into it.
Going over to read the original that inspired this great article.
February 2, 2012 at 9:20 pm
SD: Your reply was much more reasoned and thoughful than the origional post. Thanks!
February 3, 2012 at 12:27 am
GWBush campaigned and won promising humble foreign policy and a balanced budget. He lied as well. There is no difference in any of these pols.
Except Ron Paul.
February 4, 2012 at 4:20 am
SD is spot on. And all of this ranting about the GOP betraying conservative principles is meaningless. Because in the end, we all know full well that the vast majority of Republican voters will do what they always do – they will vote for the neocon candidate that inevitably wins the nomination – in this case, Romney. The Republicans always have and always will obey the establishment no matter who they nominate (always someone barely right-of-center, if that), which is why the Republican party is pathetic. Until the conservatives finally stop behaving like lemmings and reject the neocon candidates by voting third party, which they never will, the Republican party will always be pathetic. I'll pass on the Romney nomination and vote third party again this year.