I love watching politics. The discourse of human events and the conversation of what our society should become with the technology we've created is one of the most beautiful displays of awareness and understanding, strife and peaceful co-existence. I enjoy hearing someone who believes in a different philosophy of government and human social adaption - it helps me not only know what arguments are out there, but also helps frame my own opinions on matters that are important to me.
Moreover, it provides a way for me to relate to someone on a magnanimous scale - where things totally out of my control become important, and I am a major player in a political game. What's my lame one vote going to do? ...but then again, add up enough lame one votes, and you get an election.
On to my point.
Mitt Romney's campaign is dependent upon FoxNews and the Republican Party. In order to be their candidate, he has to be far right, meaning "no new taxes", tax cuts for "job creators", against "Obamacare", for national social security destruction, pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and much more. Moreover, he has to do so AND win the vote of the majority of people in the United States. It is proven that there are more people in the city than in the rural counties, and more people in the cities vote Democrat. The Republicans, who have traditionally relied on the rural vote as of the 1960's and on, have two methods of winning in the cities:
1. Get people in the city to hate their neighbor (1968 Southern Strategy a'la Nixon) by continually harping on how much of their tax dollars go to people in entitlement programs (fear socialism!) while promoting individual responsibility (yay capitalism!) as the answer our social needs. It's old, it's been said before.
2. Eliminate votes through voter ID laws, redistricting and requiring criminal background checks for registering voters. These are just simple and easy ways Republicans eliminate the votes the way they claim Democrats falsely add to them.
I point this out because these are the same tactics used by Nixon to win in 1968: Hate the hippies, they destroyed our country and Nixon is here to bring it back. There was much more to it, the but Republicans in general focused on wedging the factions apart and focusing only on specific votes for a win, and they've been doing it ever since.
But they're doing another thing with it - this time they're using the traditional Democratic technique of "don't look at me, this guy's worse" - or the "anyone but that guy" method. The Dems used it in '04, and it failed. Now, the 'Pubs are using it. Most of the time, when a political party uses the "anyone but that guy" method of attracting voters, they have a solid enemy, or a guy who stands up better against the opponent on certain issues. But when the enemy of the enemy is worse than "that guy" - which for Mitt Romney is the case for 80% of America - it becomes a poor campaign.
During a time when we have 8% and higher unemployment, displaying a rich, connected, well-to-do businessman that cut and slashed his way to success as the better choice for president than the guy who came from a single-parent home is a bad move, and a good way to lose yourself an election.
The Dems turned the table on the 'Pubs at their convention by using Bill Clinton's "Arithmetic Speech". It brought the conversation from the anyone but "that guy" that kept billowing through the Republican halls of thought to the "Which guy has a better plan and more experience" part of the conversation. It set Obama for the win.
This is now "that guy's" election to lose - and Mitt Romney will not be able to prove he's better than "that guy," no matter how hard he tries. It's only a matter of time before Fox News starts talking about 2014, or 2016, and their next big stud.
No comments:
Post a Comment