Already, some in the McCain campaign are blaming Sarah Palin for McCain's loss. I don't know how much of these complaints about Palin might be true, but I don't believe that she was responsible for his loss. Furthermore, sour grapes aren't going to solve the underlying problems that led to McCain's loss and the seats lost in Congress.
In the final analysis, it was the economy that led to McCain's defeat: a downturn that hit at just the wrong time, leaving the Republican nominee with insufficient time to recover. Economic issues tend to poll in favor of Democrats. [Liberal economic policy, based primarily on Keynesian economic prescriptions for the use of government spending to inject money to stimulate a struggling economy, does often generate a short-term economic bump. Unfortunately, it has a downside as well: inflation, growing government debt that crowds out private investment, and increased dependence on government rather than individual accomplishment. However, voters tend to base their votes on these short-term gains rather than on long-term considerations. It usually takes some time -- often a few years -- for the downside of liberal fiscal policy to become evident; likewise, policies that encourage private sector investment (for example, cuts in capital gains and corporate income taxes) take time to come to fruition.]
Underlying this electoral loss, however, is the ideological failure of the Republican Party. For some reason, Republican leadership seems to think that they can somehow out-liberal the liberals, be it McCain's rather shocking idea for the government to buy up billions in failed mortgages (which amounts to an attempt to artificially inflate home prices, which would likely result in a housing surplus), to the outrageous spending being carried out by the Republican-led Congress and the Bush Administration that made the past eight years look more like the second and third terms of the Johnson Administration than a continuation of the Reagan legacy. The need for new leadership and a commitment to conservative principles (as well as the ability to articulate them effectively) has never been more evident than it is now.
I am encouraged, however, by a few new, strong conservative faces that are up-and-coming in the GOP, Sarah Palin being one clear example. Another individual who impressed me when I saw her in a debate on C-Span a few weeks ago is the newly-elected representative from Kansas' second district, Lynn Jenkins. I'm looking forward to seeing what new "talent" we can find out there, but perhaps, hopefully, now we can see the true rebirth of Reagan conservatism.
I agree that "it was the economy, stupid." Since the surge in Iraq is working, Americans refocused themselves on the economy as the paramount issue in the election instead of the War in Iraq.
ReplyDeleteIt is important to note that Jimmy Carter won in 1976 with a Democratic Congress as well as Bill Clinton in 1992, only to see the Republicans take the White House four years later and eight years later respectively.
My point is that it is very difficult for any party to stay in the White House more than two terms, simply because Americans tend to like change in government every ten years.
You’re absolutely right! There is a tendency to want to change things around every so often. I thought, particularly after 2004, that we had seen a realignment toward long-term Republican dominance, but even if that were the case, Republicans' behavior once in office hamstrung it.
ReplyDelete