This is from an email response I sent to a friend who sent me an article from the National Review, pointing out how the current election might remind people of some other elections, like 1972 when the Dems nominated McGovern or 1964 when the Republicans nominated B. Goldwater, both of whom got plastered in the election. The author posits that Gingrich can be seen in the same light, and to some extent Romney. But then he goes on to argue that Jeb Bush might be nominated if the after the primaries the convention delegate count is close or indecisive. This is where I disagree for the reasons given below. In brief, no Republican who thinks and who is not desperate, e.g., because it is his last chance to be nominated, will jump into this election knowing that the party's establishment would not be all that upset by an Obama win and would even prefer it to a Gingrich win. If you follow the blog, this will not be a new argument but it is interesting how these situations play out in similar ways at different times. Here is the link to the article: http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/288986
Another problem with the article, now that I have perused the whole
thing, is that it still perpetuates what I take to be the myth that
political parties always want to win each election, despite what is
happening within the party. This, following Karp, obviously makes little
sense once you realize that politicians want to preserve their power
within their parties as opposed to losing it in order to win elections.
That is, given a choice between preserving their power within the party
and losing an election or losing power within the party while winning
elections, it seems to me quite uncontroversial to say that they will go
with the former and not the latter.
Evidence today? Chris Christy is sitting this one out, as are Palin and
Huckebee, all of whom I wager understand that the Republican
establishment really does not care if it loses this election as that
would put another nail in the coffin of their "insurgents." And from
this point of view, what is happening, that is, first Romney, then
Santorum, then Gingrich, is fine with that establishment as it helps to
guarantee a loss and a loss which can be blamed on the insurgents! I
suspect Jeb Bush has figured this out as well, if he hasn't been told
that the re-election of Obama is expected. And note how the economy is
just starting to "recover" or so we are told, leaving the Republicans
with no real issue as on everything else Obama has followed Bush/Shrub's
policies and even murdered Osama! He is still in Afghanistan, while
soldiers and others die, solely for political purposes, just as Shrub
created the "surge" to extend Iraq until he left office. [Nixon and
Kissinger were trying to do this in Nam only they were done in by
Watergate. How criminal is that? Continuing the bombing while knowing
that it would fail but doing so in order to be able to blame "failure" on the
next president! Are these "traditional American values?" You bet they
Further: Why can Mass. Republicans win some elections but not others,
e.g., in the legislature? Possibility: because winning the governorship
does not threaten those who now control the state party whereas in order
to win in the legislature these people would have to lose their power.
Ditto with Brown in the Senate, that is, the US Senate. Brown and Romney
were no threat to the powers that be precisely because their victories
were "personal", having little or nothing to do with the Republican
party in Mass. And think of Romney who was and is really an "outsider"
as in not really a resident here. And he was certainly not a part of the
Republican Party, the permanent Republican Party in the commonwealth. I
think the same thing could be said of Weld as well.