From the outrages he let Barack
Obama get away with to the stunning
ineptitude
of his campaign team, Mitt Romney holds plenty of blame for last
week’s dispiriting presidential election. But he’s not the only one, and before
we do something stupid like surrender
on immigration in a shortsighted bid to woo Hispanics, the Right needs to
have a little chat about another key voting bloc that should have been far
easier to hold...but wasn't, for reasons conservatives seem unwilling to discuss.
The single most shocking detail about the results was the pitiful
Republican turnout, with Romney receiving 3 million fewer GOP votes than
John McCain and 5 million fewer than George W. Bush -- a difference that could
have overcome Tuesday’s 3-million-person
difference in the popular vote or made up the 333,000
additional votes necessary for an Electoral College win.
Yes, Romney’s conservatism was imperfect. But so
was Bush's. And McCain? He was so liberal that, to keep him away from the
nomination and ensure a conservative made it on the ballot, the punditocracy told
us we had to rally around…Mitt Romney.
So how could Romney -- who, for all his flaws, took most of the
right positions, had an appealing background, and didn’t share Bush or McCain’s
zeal for amnesty -- possibly be less
palatable than either of his moderate predecessors? Especially while trying to
unseat someone widely considered to be the worst, most left-wing president in
US history?
A big part of the answer is because somewhere between GOP
presidential primaries, half the Right flip-flopped on Romney, recasting their onetime
conservative alternative as the new RINO boogeyman we needed an alternative
from, with scores of pundits, activists, and bloggers ranting that an amorphous party
"establishment" was trying to force Romney on the base. Yes,
politics is a tough business and primaries are the place for aggressively
vetting our candidates, but far too many of our own crossed the line from
“Romney is weak in area x” to “Romney is our enemy.”
Tea Party Nation head Judson Phillips and Family Research
Council president Tony Perkins said
they'd focus on congressional races because Romney wasn’t worth their
members’ excitement. Sen. Rick Santorum suggested
Romney might not be different enough from Obama to bother changing presidents.
Talk radio host Mark Levin excoriated Romney daily, calling him a corporatist
of questionable
character who couldn’t be supported in the primary without compromising
all of one's principles. Blogger Dan Riehl considered
organizing conservatives to oppose Romney in
the general election. Free Republic banned
all Romney supporters as “enemies of the Constitution.” Blogger John
Hawkins warned
that supporting Romney would require conservatives to “sell our souls.” RedState.com
waged an all-out war against Romney and his sympathizers, the most hysterical
examples of which being Erick Erickson’s claim that nominating the bad
Mormon would kill
conservatism and Thomas Crown’s accusation
that National Review “alienated”
itself from the conservative movement by preferring Romney to the alternatives.
Conservative stalwarts like Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan got torn apart as phonies in popular comment sections for backing Romney. And last month, Personhood USA used
an unfair
spin on Romney’s words as evidence that he was “insisting on maintaining the
status quo of abortion on demand.”
Fast-forward to Election Day, and 5 million Republican voters decide to stay home.
Gee, who could have guessed? (I mean, besides me.)
Again, we shouldn’t completely absolve Romney of responsibility.
As the candidate, it was his job to assure the base he could walk the walk. Nor
should Romney’s shortcomings have gone ignored or unchallenged during the
primary.
But with so many influential conservative voices doing
everything they could to convince their audiences that Romney was just Diet
Obama and that he posed an existential threat to their very philosophy, is it
any wonder that so many of them decided not to vote? How is any post-primary
coalescing supposed to fully heal divisions that deep? How are Republican
candidates supposed to endure two-front wars against Democrats and their own base?
Rather than protect the integrity of the Republican ticket,
Levin, Erickson, Perkins, and company served as useful idiots for the Left,
dividing conservatives enough for a weak incumbent with indefensible
ideas and hated
policies to keep power for another four years. And now we’re all going to suffer
for it.
It goes without saying that for 2016, we’ll need to find a
candidate with bolder instincts, a deeper affinity for conservatism, and
greater skill in articulating it. But by the time his own failings and impurities
come to light, hopefully Obama’s second term will have taught our Purity Police
that a little perspective can make a world of difference.

One thing that really concerns me is that I fear many Conservatives have given in to the stereotypes of the left judging from their post election rants. If we look at the demographics of the Americans who stayed home on Election Day, we mostly see poor white people. Many Conservatives seem to think that being more pure and less moderate would cause these people to come out and vote Republican. The problem is that despite the leftist stereotype of the religious right as "poor, uneducated, hicks", most Conservative Christians are people with good jobs, bachelors degrees, and intact marriages. As Charles Murray's book "Coming Apart" reveals, nowadays most poor white Americans are shunning marriage but not sex, are obsessed with alcohol, pornography, and gambling, and are actually the least likely demographic to attend church. Not exactly a formula for religious conservatism. Our churches need to be reaching out to these people indeed. We just can't assume poor white Americans are on our side of the culture wars.
ReplyDelete