Fatcow Icon
Republicans face tougher road
by Mona Charen
Nov 13, 2012 | 1918 views | 9 9 comments | 4 4 recommendations | email to a friend | print

Even when the economy is terrible, when the incumbent Democratic president has not been able to demonstrate success on job creation or growth, and even when the standard of living for Americans is declining on his watch, the country will choose a Democrat “who cares about the problems of people like me” over the Republican. That alone is enough to make Republican heads spin for some time.

Many established beliefs about presidential politics have been proved false by Obama’s re-election: The idea that, when unemployment is above 7 percent, incumbents fail; The notion that incumbent presidents who are re-elected always increase their percentage of the vote over their first race; The idea that late deciders break for the challenger; The belief that if majorities say the country is on the “wrong track,” the incumbent will be defeated. All wrong.

The problem with all of these so-called laws of politics is that they are based on a tiny sample. There have only been 20 presidential contests between 1936 (the year these “laws” are usually dated from) and today. That’s too small a data set from which to glean reliable trends, far less iron laws of politics.

Romney made his share of mistakes. It’s possible that if he hadn’t alienated Hispanic voters during the primaries by his harsh anti-immigration stance, if he hadn’t committed the “47 percent” blunder, and if he had more effectively rebutted the Obama smear campaign against him as a rapacious capitalist who was willing to inflict unemployment on thousands to increase his own and his shareholders’ profits, he might have pulled out a victory.

But it’s also true that Romney had many strengths, and Obama had many weaknesses. One lesson for Republicans in this defeat (beyond the issue, addressed by this column before, of immigration) is a familiar one that we must examine anew: The Republican message of free enterprise, self-reliance and individual initiative is a harder sell than the Democratic message of “Let the government take care of you.”

This is particularly true among single women. Romney won male voters 52 to 45 percent, but he lost women 55 to 44 percent. While Romney prevailed among married women by 53 to 46 percent, Obama’s margin among single women was a crushing 68 to 30 percent. Adding to the gloom for Republicans, fewer than half of American households now feature a married couple. The illegitimacy rate is 40 percent. And the women’s vote has been increasing as a share of the total for the past several election cycles. In 1980, women were 50 percent of the electorate. This year, they were 54 percent of voters.

The decline of marriage is far more than just a political problem for Republicans. Unless reversed, it may represent the unraveling of our civilization. But it is also a political problem. The Democrats’ message to single women is simple: We will give you free stuff. Free birth control. Free medical care. Welfare payments for your children if you are poor. Food stamps. The whole welfare state package. Women want security above all. You don’t have to be a political wizard to sell that message. If it’s not Santa Claus, it’s certainly Mr. Rogers. Ironically, the worse the economy gets under Democratic governance, the more single women cling to Democrats to protect them from the consequences of that failure.

A Republican has the much more demanding challenge — to convince voters that smaller government and more free enterprise will improve their lives, their incomes and therefore their security. A good paying job is far superior to even the most lavish welfare benefits. That message has the advantage of being true, but it just may require a bit of political genius to sell it effectively.

That’s not to say it cannot be done. If Republicans can find a candidate who conveys the requisite concern for the struggles of the ordinary person, whose personal story is not one of privilege, who conveys a Kempian enthusiasm for the glories of free markets and free peoples and who is pro-immigrant, that person could win. It may be Marco Rubio. There are other possible contenders: Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley, Ted Cruz and Susanna Martinez all spring to mind.

To be a successful Republican requires more brains and imagination than to be a successful Democrat. Fortunately for the party and the country, we have a deep bench.



Comments
(9)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
ROSSisRIGHT
|
November 14, 2012
We are out numbered by the "gimmie somethin" crowd.

The only way to correct the voting mess we have now is to impose voting requirements: 1) Credit check, score must demonstrate responsibility.

2) Drug tests givin before one casts his vote, and pass.

These will eleminate irresponsible and drug induced ones from destroying the country like they are doing to themselves....
davidlocklear77
|
November 14, 2012
Really RossisRight. After reading your post and replies to sportjunkie I looked up your name on yahoo search engine just to ensure we didn't stay near you here in sadletree. What about the DPS webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/opi/viewoffender.do?method? Sad.
ROSSisRIGHT
|
November 15, 2012
So what?
SportsJunkie
|
November 15, 2012
3) a High School DIPLOMA not an equivalent. That shows you can finish what you start. That would eliminate you.
freightweigh
|
November 15, 2012
I finally agree with something you said Ross.

Number two on your list. But... one change though. Instead of drug testing everyone, we can save time and money by pulling a history on everyone. Anyone with a history of drugs, CANNOT vote. That would save time, don't you agree??

ROSSisRIGHT
|
November 18, 2012
Sportjunky: You do know it's harder to obtain a degree in ART than it is a public education degree. Imagine that, to draw pictures of Mickey Mouse one must pass a harder set of curriculum than that of public education..... Oh well........
SportsJunkie
|
November 19, 2012
Ross, lets see you dropped out of high school to fight the war in Vietnam? Nah, you just couldn't stand school. Now you come on here and blame PSRC for you being illiterate. WOW!!!! I know several people who were educated in this county, and they are doctors, lawyers, business owners, etc. You might want to try getting a degree in something, and put it next to your I didn't finish high school piece of paper. I have no problem with GED earners by the way, because most of them were smart enough to leave school early and earn it. They left because they had to get jobs and support themselves or their family. Ross you seem like the one who was LAZY, and was sent to special classes in the Army so you could try and get a promotion. Ross you come across as bitter because you can't accomplish what others have done. Come volunteer your time at the schools and see if you have the skill set to deal with young people.
Weather
Sponsored By:

Lottery
Sponsored By:

Stocks
Sponsored By:

Gas Prices
Sponsored By:

Featured Businesses
Recipes
Sponsored By: