Liberal Onslaught Empowered By Republican Timidity
Despite dire pronouncements of America’s irreversible shift to the left, the 2010 mid-term elections strongly indicated exactly the opposite. But while at first glance it may seem completely inconsistent for the nation to dump Democrat office holders in 2010 and then reelect their worst offender in 2012, the emerging picture of exactly what transpired on Election Day may yield valuable insight as to the overall mood and concern of American voters.
While conservatives are painfully aware that Barack Obama did in fact win on November 6, the grimness of the current situation is only enhanced by the manner in which the Republican Party has responded to his reelection. It is not surprising that though Obama’s margin of victory was considerably smaller this year than in 2008, Democrats and their media minions are claiming their victory as a mandate to transform America into a sorry imitation of those failing European socialist states. What is appalling however is that establishment Republicans are almost exuberant in their efforts to characterize the election as a mandate to capitulate to the left while jettisoning virtually every precept of real conservatism.
Assessments of the event, both by Republican Party insiders and defeatist conservative pundits, are so far-reaching and absolute as to give the impression that the thrashing Democrats suffered at the polls only two years ago never even happened. A thorough perusal of this year’s post-election analyses reveals that most commentators perceive an opportunity to spin the unfortunate circumstances to their own benefit, or to a particular cause which they support. Supposed reasons are all over the board, ranging from the conservative aversion towards amnesty to the notion that Republicans only favor “the rich,” to the mere presence of Church going Americans who uphold tradition and believe the Bible.
Despite dire pronouncements of America’s irreversible shift to the left, those 2010 mid-term elections strongly indicated exactly the opposite. But while at first glance it may seem completely inconsistent for the nation to dump Democrat office holders in 2010 and then reelect their worst offender in 2012, the emerging picture of exactly what transpired on Election Day may yield valuable insight as to the overall mood and concern of American voters. It now appears that 2010 was a well defined referendum on conservative America versus socialist America. Unfortunately, that was not the nature of this year’s race. Governor Romney’s political past, which was less than stellar from a political perspective, when combined with the overall nature of the Romney campaign, suggests that this year’s contest was ultimately a referendum on committed liberal Democrats pitted against the likely prospect of business as usual from the GOP.
Admittedly, the Obama camp did a far better job of getting its voters to the ballot box. In some districts, turnout was as much as 157% of those registered, a feat not likely to be matched by Republicans. In over a hundred and sixty voting districts between Ohio and Pennsylvania, Obama received 99% or better, while Romney did not receive a single vote. These outlandish numbers are virtually unseen outside of third-world dictatorships. Nevertheless, the liberal media has appraised the situation, and concluded that such phenomena are completely understandable, thus ensuring that in the long run, the entire matter will be dropped.
Meanwhile, the Romney campaign allowed itself to be hamstrung by a crippling fear of actually confronting Barack Obama with his abhorrent track record. Having accepted the twisted absurdities of “political correctness” over the years, “mainstream” politicians, including that vaunted GOP establishment, allowed its premises to become virtually codified as a framework for legitimate political discourse. As a result, the nation has now reached a dangerous milestone where merely speaking the truth is itself no longer allowable.
Thus, every mention of the Benghazi disaster, and the flagrant deceit of Barack Obama and his UN Envoy Susan Rice regarding its root cause, are shamelessly but easily deflected as “racism.” Likewise, discussions of Obama Attorney General Eric Holder’s “Fast and Furious” fiasco were handily consigned to the realm of the conspiratorial and thus off limits during debates or campaign ads. Operating under such restrictions, is it any wonder that the Romney campaign found it nearly impossible to deliver a worthwhile message of its own? And operating from such flawed reasoning, did anyone expect to gain significant numbers of crossover voters by essentially offering the Obama Phone lady a cheaper phone?
It is futility to conduct an effective campaign with so much energy being focused on the avoidance of pitfalls concocted by the liberal media. Though the entire inner circle of the GOP insists that such decorum must be strictly observed, its track record of success is, in retrospect, abysmal. Since 1988, Republican presidential candidates have garnered a majority at the ballot box on exactly one occasion, which was the 2004 reelection of George W. Bush. Clearly, a milquetoast campaign strategy achieves as much as does a bland and insipid political strategy in the halls of Congress.
So, how are entrenched Republicans choosing to respond to the results of November 6? In far too many instances, they are obsessively seeking futile avenues by which they expect to pander and capitulate their way back to leadership. Discussions of amnesty for illegal aliens are rampant, though that course would leave Republicans with an additional deficit of at least four million voters with which to contend. And that number presumes absurdly high proportions of the Hispanic community magically switching parties in the wake of this massive influx of new “citizens.”
Of course the latest minefield into which those hapless Republicans are inexorably being drawn pertains to the budget. Here again, blunt and undiluted assessments of the current budget situation are clearly warranted yet extremely unlikely. Ever eager to find “common ground” with a regime that has criminally exceeded its constitutional charter, increasing numbers of Senate Republicans, led by John McCain (R.-AZ) and Lindsay Graham (R.-SC) are breaking the “no tax” pledge and making plans to allow tax hikes in exchange for spending cuts.
If any single situation exemplifies the manner in which the Republican Party can successfully deflate and undermine its voting base, this is it. Republicans will once more cave, as they have done in the past, in return for yet another iteration of the empty Democrat promise which has never been kept. Every Republican politician who pins hopes on these accompanying cuts is a proven incompetent. They simply will not happen.
Herein is the beauty of bipartisanship, at least from the liberal perspective. Democrats will dictate the agenda to the delight of their dependent base, and when the inevitable economic catastrophe ensues, Republicans will have to accept their share of responsibility, having been willing participants in the mismanagement of the nation’s finances.
A truly principled and conservative Republican Party does indeed face a difficult road ahead, given the duplicity of the Democrat opposition, the propagandistic nature of the “mainstream” media, and the apparent inability of the dependent class to recognize the real nature of those who perpetually enslave it. Nevertheless, it is crucial for Republicans to recognize that their only option is to remain committed to the greatness of America as the land of the free, not the land of the free ride. Watered down conservatism will only guarantee the continued ascendancy of the political left.
Christopher G. Adamo is a resident of southeastern Wyoming and has been involved in state and local politics for many years. He writes for several prominent conservative websites, as has written for regional and national magazines. His contact information and article archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com, and he can be followed on Twitter @CGAdamo.