A GOP Formula For Victory In 2008
By Christopher Adamo (10/18/07)
Despite the gloomy prognostications of Hillary’s inevitability as the next
heir to the White House, she is no more “invincible” as a candidate than was
her husband. And here a reality check is in order. Although the press would
have us all believe that Bill Clinton was and is universally adored,
attaining a status somewhere between that of a rock star and the savior of
humanity, history tells a much different story.
Bill Clinton’s approval ratings, we were incessantly told, hovered somewhere
up in the stratosphere during most of his term as president. Yet the truth
is that he won in 1992 with barely forty three percent of one of the
smallest voter turnouts in almost a century. As the incumbent in 1996, and
against an appallingly weak Dole campaign, Bill Clinton was still unable to
garner fifty percent of the vote. And again voter turnout was abysmally
light.
The Clinton presidency never was the result of a popular swing to the left.
Rather, as uninspired as the public was with his self-absorption and
perpetual adolescence, it was even less enthused with the possibility of a
continuation of the waffling and fence-sitting it had received from the GOP.
And unfortunately, the current political landscape is no different.
Going into the 2008 election cycle, the biggest political “enemy” Republican
candidates face is neither the novice from Chicago, the “debutante” from New
York, nor that guy who probably uses more shampoo in one week than most
Americans could justify using in a year. Rather it is the public perception
of “business as usual.”
After being let down by their weak-kneed and morally rudderless “leaders” on
a regular basis ever since Ronald Reagan left office, cynicism is running
high, and trust in the political establishment is in short supply. The
moment the conservative base perceives that the GOP candidate is once again
offering banalities and platitudes, and is attempting to appeal to the
“middle,” the race is essentially over, and our side loses.
The “Beltway Insider” crowd is already making its presence known in this
very manner, predictably seeking to shift the debate to the left, in hopes
of appealing to “moderates.” “Conventional wisdom” says to move to the
center and avoid “controversial” issues. But following such a path would be
politically fatal.
Those Republican candidates who attempt to find “common ground” with the
present power structure will be quickly abandoned by the grassroots.
Conversely, recent history and experience have unequivocally shown that the
public will rally to the support of a candidate who unabashedly embraces
bold and decisive stances, and who is unafraid to body-slam the insidious
apparition of creeping liberalism that threatens to unravel the fabric of
our society.
Although virtually every aspiring Republican candidate speaks reverently of
Ronald Reagan, and even claims to be his rightful heir, the Trojan Horses
among them follow up by immediately and incorrectly invoking the “Big Tent,”
one of Reagan’s shining hallmarks of leadership, as reason to cave and
back-peddle on crucial, defining issues.
In truth, two very disparate concepts of “Big Tent” exist, which can be
characterized as the Reagan version and Bob Dole’s imitation. Reagan
basically told America, “Here are the core ideas in which I believe. Leave
your petty differences aside and join me as I institute my vision for
America.” Dole, on the other hand, essentially said to everyone, “Tell me
whatever you believe in and I will join you.”
Reagan’s version is based on leadership and principle. It rallies, inspires,
and motivates. The latter, which results from following and pandering,
generates disillusionment and cynicism. Conservative Americans need not be
reminded of which one worked, and which one was a loser. If Republicans fall
for the counterfeit version again, the results this time around will be no
better than they have ever been.
For the “Big Tent” to properly operate, it must be understood that “Reagan
Democrats” can be convinced to cross party lines only if they are offered
something higher and nobler, not merely cheaper, than that which they can
get from their own party. Those Democrats who will not vote for a
conservative are certainly not going to go for “light beer” liberalism from
a “moderate” Republican when they can get the full strength version from
their own side.
In the same vein, it must be understood that the constitutional purpose of a
Vice-Presidency is neither to “broaden the base” nor to seek electoral votes
from blue states. Rather, it is to ensure that if a chief executive is
unable to complete his term of office, the successor is someone who will
stay the course.
Any candidate who truly believes in those principles that moved him to run
in the first place should pick a running mate who will continue in his
footsteps. And if he says so in unequivocal terms that display a commitment
to conservative values and the Constitution, he will only gain in
credibility and stature as a result.
The single component that most consistently yielded victory in past
elections, and the absence of which invariably portends defeat for our side
is “contrast.” Come Election Day, Democrat candidates are always anxious to
blur the lines. Everyone can recall John Kerry with his purchase of a
“Huntin’ license,” Michael Dukakis riding around in an M-1 tank, and the
predictable election eve Democrat embrace of “family values.” The list goes
on.
However, when in the presence of Republican candidates of unwavering
conservatism, these ploys were unmitigated disasters. Efforts of that nature
can only succeed when GOP attempts at “moderation” make it easy for
Democrats to posture to the right of them.
In short, a Republican who is unafraid and unembarrassed to trumpet his
conservatism, not as a primary season façade, but as a sincere expression of
his heart, still holds the best hope for the GOP. Nor should he ever attempt
to bridge the gap between himself and his Democrat opponent. On some issues,
no “common ground” exists. Attempts to mix pure water with sewage will not
result in purer sewage. And the country knows it.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Christopher Adamo
