I've replied to politically posts as a way to stay passively engaged, but haven't made a positive political contribution on this or my personal Facebook page throughout the whole election cycle. I have felt as strongly, and have felt pangs of conscience for not getting out and participating more, or at least being bold about what I believe. It feels rather like I'm hiding it: I'm not, it's just not my time. I made a conscious decision to put some other priorities ahead, even though I feel strongly that this was a super important election and the chance to turn the tide of some severely menacing trends in the halls of power was missed.
And the failure has been blinding on the conservative side.
Pundits have had their say now for a few weeks, and most of the conservatives right away have blamed Romney himself as a candidate. They had been carrying water for him despite having worked against him in the primaries, and as soon as it was evident that he wasn't going to win, it was an easy thing for them to return to their mantra, lump Romney in with Dole, HW Bush, and especially McCain.
I think it's more complex than that. And I was glad to read today that Ann Coulter agrees with me in her most recent column. The upshot is that Romney DID present a clear difference, that Reagan himself had many similar features to his campaign versus Carter, and that the electorate itself isn't the same--it's polarizing. The Republican base is shrinking to conservatism only, with no big tent anymore for people who can agree with us 80% of the time (yes, that's a Reagan reference).
Romney's message could have used a little improvement here and there, but the Republicans won't win the next one by demonizing Romney and thereby setting the next guy up ALSO as not perfect enough.
My take is we need to win on big vision, not on a particular candidate. And for that, we have a harder case to make: the insidious ways that government control takes away freedom aren't always obvious enough to convince those not interested in listening beyond the surface point the soundbytes are making. But liberty IS on the Republican side, and IS what's at stake.
And the failure has been blinding on the conservative side.
Pundits have had their say now for a few weeks, and most of the conservatives right away have blamed Romney himself as a candidate. They had been carrying water for him despite having worked against him in the primaries, and as soon as it was evident that he wasn't going to win, it was an easy thing for them to return to their mantra, lump Romney in with Dole, HW Bush, and especially McCain.
I think it's more complex than that. And I was glad to read today that Ann Coulter agrees with me in her most recent column. The upshot is that Romney DID present a clear difference, that Reagan himself had many similar features to his campaign versus Carter, and that the electorate itself isn't the same--it's polarizing. The Republican base is shrinking to conservatism only, with no big tent anymore for people who can agree with us 80% of the time (yes, that's a Reagan reference).
Romney's message could have used a little improvement here and there, but the Republicans won't win the next one by demonizing Romney and thereby setting the next guy up ALSO as not perfect enough.
My take is we need to win on big vision, not on a particular candidate. And for that, we have a harder case to make: the insidious ways that government control takes away freedom aren't always obvious enough to convince those not interested in listening beyond the surface point the soundbytes are making. But liberty IS on the Republican side, and IS what's at stake.
Comments