Election Postmortem

For many of us, the 2012 elections were a great disappointment.  Economic growth is not keeping up with population growth. Unemployment has been over 8% for the entire length of President Obama’s term. No President has ever been re-elected with unemployment over 7.2%. We are indeed in the worst economy since the Great Depression, and that includes the Carter years! George HW Bush was tossed out of office on the basis of an economy that was in much better shape than the one we currently endure. When looking at the internal data of the polls and the state of the economy, it was not unreasonable to believe that the GOP would win this election in a wave.

Romney ran a campaign based upon a good economic plan and a good record in business. His success at turning around failing ventures was exemplary. President Obama had no record to run on. He could not point to any accomplishments during his first term that would merit re-election. His one signature accomplishment, Obamacare, still remains unpopular with the American people. It was forced down the throat of the American people on a partisan vote. His entire campaign was reduced to scathing negative attacks and distortions on his opponent. His entire rationale for his re-election during the campaign was to create an irrational fear of the other guy. He offered nothing to make us believe that the next four years would be any different than the last four years. How then could this incompetent amateur get re-elected? What mistakes did the Republican Party make that allowed this to happen and what changes should they make going forward?

First, the Republican Party needs to differentiate between partisanship and principle. The American people have said time and time again that they are tired of the partisan bickering. They want the two parties to work together to solve the problems facing the country. This is a pipe dream, but not for the reasons that you might think. The failure to work together on the big issues facing our nation has more to do with deeply held philosophical differences on how to achieve a goal than it does over a desire to “one up” the other guy.

Politics has been treated over the past 24 years as more of a competitive sport rather than service to country. There is a red team and a blue team. Each side is more concerned with “winning” the next election and thus increasing their share of power. Each side will peck away at the opposition in an attempt to bring down the other side rather than doing what is right for their constituents. Die hards on both sides love the “red meat” of demagoguery, ridicule, and destruction. When those engaged in political discourse focus on these things, while it may be food for the base, it turns off the independents and frustrates more and more Americans. There are so many Americans who are eligible to vote who choose not to out of frustration.  Many believe that there is no difference between the Democrat and Republican Parties because all they do is engage in partisan attack over small things.

The mistake Republicans made over the last four years was failing to articulate their principles and dived straight into the mud. Middle America was paying attention when Rush Limbaugh stated that he wanted Barack Obama to fail. Mitch McConnell’s statement that the goal of the GOP was to make Obama a one term President did not go unnoticed. This kind of rhetoric works well with the base, but makes the party seem petty and personal. It gave Obama the opening he needed to blame the GOP for his failures. Rather than positioning themselves as the loyal opposition standing on principle, it made them seem like their goal was to bring down the President, no matter the cost.  Now to be fair to Rush Limbaugh, he has explained the context of his statement. He wanted SOCIALISM to fail, not Obama per se. 

The Republican Party needs to articulate their principles in opposition. This means that they need to offer alternative legislation to accomplish the goals that are set before them. When they stand in opposition, they need to explain to the American people why. They need to avoid incendiary language and personal attacks. They should praise the intention of the legislation, but explain how the approach they oppose won’t work or has unintended consequences that are unacceptable. By differentiating themselves on principle rather than partisanship they can stay true to themselves yet not alienate a large section of the electorate that they need to attract.

Secondly, the Tea Party elements of the GOP need to rebrand themselves. The principles of the Tea Party are valid and mainstream. There is nothing extreme about balanced budgets, fiscal conservatism, low taxes, and opposition to socialism. They are right to oppose the moderate elements or RINOs in the GOP. Where they have made mistakes is in pushing the wrong candidates to carry their banner. Christine O’Donnell came across as a lightweight. Sharon Angle was also painted as a lightweight. Akin and Murdock’s comments about rape were not only insulting, but outright nutty.

The Tea Party just needs to absorb itself into the GOP and stop using that moniker. Fair or not, the brand is tainted.  While the values of the Tea Party are mainstream, the brand has been irreparably harmed and labeled as racist and hateful. This narrative is not fair, but the independents we are trying to attract have bought it. It is possible to drop the name without compromising the values.

Finally, the GOP needs to stop the romance with moderates and neo-cons. The future of the GOP is libertarianism. Freedom is an easy value to market. It comes across as hypocritical to say we want government to keep out of your economic life when you tell them that we want government to interfere in your personal choices. Freedom means that sometimes people will make choices we don’t like. Deal with it.  If the GOP wants to win elections, they need to offer a true small government candidate, not a Democrat lite.  This means we need to nominate either a true conservative or a libertarian. We need to offer the American people a clear alternative. We can still be pro-life, but we need to make sure that we allow for exceptions in the case of rape, incest, or the mother’s life. That is reasonable. Articulate the choice as freedom vs. big government and freedom will win.

I am sure that there are other things that can be said, but these are some initial thoughts.