First, fair notice for those visiting for the first time or just don't know me well enough to get a sense of my politics: I'm a registered Republican and a paleoconservative. Life was good in the 80's and Reagan should be beatified. If you disagree--*shrug*
Also, this is admittedly a simplified view. I'm not a political wonk, economist, or someone "in the know." I'm a simple guy with simple thoughts.
I liken this to 1975 or 76. Probably more like 75. We had an unpopular war, made unpopular by the Left (though it's ironic that it was Johnson, a liberal Democrat, who escalated the Vietnam conflict, but I digress). Congress was controlled in 1975 by the Democrats, and it was Congress which ignored Ford when he practically pleaded for them to not cut off funding to support South Vietnam. With absolutely no support from the US, things turned out badly for the South Vietnamese. Furthermore, Ford was faulted for the loss of South Vietnam to the Communists by conservatives in the GOP.
Ford was also criticized by the GOP for negotiating with Panama to hand over the canal to their control. It was seen as being weak in protecting US interests.
We also had a faltering economy in 1975. We had 9% inflation in 75, with an increase to almost 14% by the time Carter left office. Unemployment was at about 8.4% on average. Not all Ford's fault, but like it or not, the President gets credit or blame for the economy whether it's warranted or not.
With Ford being blamed for all this, Reagan was seen as the party's salvation. Unfortunately, Reagan's attempt to reach out to the centrists in the party backfired, giving Ford the nomination. Thing is, most conservatives were disenchanted with Ford, and as such, stayed home on election day. The rest is regrettable history.
Now today...
We have an unpopular war, and while the Bush administration has tripped over its feet every step of the way in marketing the war, ultimately it's the same ideological group which has worked to make any military intervention on our part unpopular (except Kosovo, but that's because it was their idea). We have a Democrat-controlled Congress which is all too eager to pull our troops out and leave Iraq and Afghanistan to fend for themselves. It doesn't take much imagination to see how that could end badly for both countries. And we have conservatives turning on Bush and his administration of the war.
Bush is criticized for his unwillingness to halt illegal immigration, as is McCain. It's seen as being weak on protecting US (sovereignty, domestic, economic and cultural) interests.
And then there's the economy. While both inflation and unemployment are relatively low, both are creeping up, which is getting a fair amount of negative press. The housing market is also seen as a crisis; given that it's where most people put their money, the effects of such could be much worse than a stock market crash.
While Bush isn't running, his legacy is. McCain is probably the closest thing to a standard bearer for that legacy in terms of supporting its policies. Unfortunately, many in the GOP are disenchanted with the legacy and want anyone but McCain (despite the fact that he's locked up the nomination quite handily). I say "unfortunately" because it's to the point that many Republicans are willing to chop off the nose to spite the face, and it's a foolish position to take. Some notable commentators, like Ann Coulter, have said they would rather vote for Clinton if McCain received the nomination, presumably because McCain isn't conservative enough. Others may be thinking more strategically. Re:
The problem with this thinking is that it demands an all or nothing approach. I've always considered conservatives to be generally a pragmatic lot and that politics is more business than personal. So I find such spoilsport thinking to be quite... alien. And the reality is, if conservatives decide to stay home on election day again ala 1976, or do the insane and vote for Obama or Clinton, then if it's all or nothing they want, it's nothing they'll get and it'll be an ugly next four years.
That said, I do think Obama has this won for some of the reasons alluded to in the Muir strips. Hope sells, and Obama is perceived as being the purveyor of hope while McCain is perceived as selling fear. For the uncommited 40% swing vote--the 40% which is likely to take their news in pablum form from the MSM--Obama is the savior. Nevermind that he's been silent on his position to most issues; he's photogenic, well-spoken, and he leaves the masses with a warm gooey feeling on the inside. Sadly, that's enough for most.
I'm not a McCain kinda guy; Fred was my guy. I think the best presidents are the reluctant ones. Still, I respect McCain's service and I think he's the GOP's best candidate to capture that 40%--the best candidate to win. I think he'll make a good CINC and that he won't cut & run from Iraq and Afghanistan. He also has cordial relations with the other side of the aisle, which is necessary when you don't control Congress. And, I think he'll be fairly well received by foreign leaders, but not as warmly received as Obama. Hell, even Canada's supporting him, in a manner of speaking; "blatantly unfair." Pshaw! No, not a McCain guy, but I'll be there on election day voting for him because ultimately it's better to get something than nothing. And if you need proof of that, turn on your way-back machine and remember 1977-1981.
No comments:
Post a Comment