On Being More Conservative

In the wake of Mitt Romney's defeat in November, there has been a large debate on the right as to whether or not he should have run as a "more conservative" candidate than he did.  It is a topic worth broaching, if only because it seems to have flared up somewhat in the wake of CPAC.

The first element to answer: Was Mitt Romney a conservative candidate?

That question feels a bit hard to answer.  Does Mitt Romney share (basically) the same conceptualization as the average conservative of fiscal responsibility?  More than likely.  Does he share a similar view regard small, limited government?  This is less clear, though "no" is likely closer to the truth, if his history is any indication.  Regardless of what he believes, the Romney campaign was weakened by the fact that neither of those questions can be answered clearly. This has led many to criticize him and his campaign for “not being conservative enough” (a sentiment I happen to agree with). Of course, this point of view is not without its detractors.

Critics of that idea often cite two reasons against a more clearly conservative candidate. First, the electorate was not looking for a very conservative candidate.  Second, they believe that those who think the candidate should have been more conservative also believe that “more conservatism” automatically equals “victory.”

The former belief may not be inaccurate.  After decades of the modern public school system and a corrupt media, many people are inherently inclined to agree with the assumptions of the progressive worldview.  Tricked into believing that government programs and intervention are not just compassionate, but necessary, has left many people in the United States clamoring for it, regardless of the results.

Of course, this does not mean there are not people who cannot be persuaded otherwise.  The primary flaw of this argument is that it implicitly assumes people will not be swayed by strong conservative arguments.  Keep in mind, the critics likely do not believe this either, but in criticizing the idea that a strong conservative would be better, they accidentally assume this.

The second belief is both condescending and wrong.  First, it assumes that the people who agree with the idea that Mitt Romney should have run more to the right are simpletons who actually believe "more conservatism" = "automatic victories."  This is a false way to frame it.  No one of consequence actually says that.  And I otherwise find it hard to believe that large amounts of people think being more conservative will automatically result in victory.

The point of running conservatively is that it can draw a clear distinction between us and progressives.  It allows the right to make a more effective case for liberty and small government.  Romney was completely unable to do this.  From Romneycare to his tendency to agree with President Obama in the latter two debates, he rarely came across as a clear conservative, no matter how often he mentioned that he was.  More often than not, he unintentionally made himself appear to be a less progressive version of the president, blurring the differences between the two.

Tying the two beliefs together, this sounds like the common idea that the Republicans need to run more moderate candidates to win (despite evidence to the contrary).  By making the first assumption, they conclude that conservatism will not work as an election theme, even when presented clearly to the voting populace.  Then they assume that conservative ideals have been clearly presented to the voters in the time since Ronald Reagan.  Between President Bush's "compassionate conservatism" (which likewise contains the inherent assumption that we are not compassionate otherwise) to the constant media distortions, this has not been the case.  While there are certainly areas of the country where a more moderate candidate would work better, it is not universal either.

To assume that running with stronger conservative bona fides would be detrimental, while not necessarily a point to automatically shun, is likewise not universally applicable.  It shows a lack of understanding of conservatism to treat it so dismissively.  It is the ideological driver of the right and should be treated as such, both by the politicians and the voters.

On the 2012 Election

Well, after taking a kinda-sorta break immediately following an election that was a disaster, I am back and in full force.  I have my ice cream, my vodka and my fuzzy bunny slippers and I am all ready to curl up and cry for another few months.  Yes, I will be eating all three.

In all seriousness, as I slowly recover from the utter demoralization of Tuesday, let me give you my thoughts on what happened.

This man loses more gracefully than liberals win, sadly.

First of all, I was utterly shocked by the result.  Not only did Mitt Romney lose, but the Republicans lost seats in congress (though they maintained their house majority).  You already know this.  I think I can also say with confidence I was as flabbergasted as the rest of the conservative movement by this.  It seemed like the momentum was on our side, with the terrible shape the nation is in, and people would be wise enough to make the change needed to fix our ever-growing problems.

They did not and now the question is why?  Let me take a stab at it.

First, I honestly believe Romney was a bad candidate.  Now, do not get me wrong, conservatives did not have a good crop to choose from to begin with.  Most of the others had baggage or inherent flaws.  I love Rick Santorum and Herman Cain (the latter's recent advocacy of a third party notwithstanding), but I also realize neither could have won.  I am also not shortchanging Mitt, for I believe he put as much effort as he personally could into his bid.

However, Romney had several glaring issues, among them Romneycare.  It took the issue of Obamacare off the table almost entirely.  It was most certainly mentioned here or there, but its taxes, spending and rationing never got the play it should have.  Indeed, with Obama's re-election, many businesses fully intend on avoiding its costs and a firmer argument against it may have avoided the lost jobs we will be seeing.

He also never truly has been a conservative.  In this election, it seemed imperative to me that our side draw a clear distinction between ourselves and Barack Obama and, in so doing, show those demographic groups who often vote Democrat that we have their best interests at heart.  That never happened. Romney certainly talked a good game and selected Paul Ryan, to his credit, but it never truly got beyond that.  Thus the lines between the "devil we knew "and the "devil we didn't" became increasingly blurred, particularly during the third debate.

However, moreso than Mitt's own flaws as a candidate was his campaign apparatus.  I believe he surrounded himself with establishment advisers who gave him bad advice.  Part of me genuinely wonders if it was Mitt himself who preferred passivity or the advice he was given to be less aggressive.  Perhaps it was a combination both.  Either way, his campaign was mismanaged, much in the same way John McCain's was (though McCain was a charisma black hole, if what happened Sarah Palin is any indication).  His lack of aggressiveness on issues like Benghazi allowed to truth to stay sealed up tight.

Additionally, I am hearing stories now of a truly weak ground game by the Republicans, which, if true, is truly absurd.  Millions of conservatives and Christians not voting should not be happening, particularly in an election this important.  Obama having a stronger ground game should not have translated into an inept one by his opposition.

This points to what are really the inherent weaknesses of the Republican Party.  If its establishment is so mired in their own egos and belief in their ability that they cannot organize effectively, it is about time they be replaced with people of energy and fresh ideas.  Replaced by people capable of adapting to the information age and changing demographics.  In particular, that establishment must be replaced by people with true conservative principles instead of party loyalty.

I believe when we realize this, conservatives will have learned the true lesson of 2012.

P.S. Think I may write about some of the smaller issues on the election tomorrow or Saturday.  There are many small issues like Chris Christie, Akin and Mourdock and others that deserve some mention.  That and I just feel like talking about it.  You got a problem with that?