Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Election 2012: National Review Comments

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:

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 are.]

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.

No comments:

Post a Comment