In posting on twitter the last week or so one thing has become increasingly clear to me. In addition to this being one of the most important elections in our lifetime, there is no reasoning with partisans who think their primary candidate is the absolute only one who can win. (While I'm talking about Rick Perry mainly in this article, you can certainly apply it to radical Ron Paul supporters, Rick Santorum supporters, or any other hyper partisans who can see no good in other candidates to the point of almost claiming non-supporters of their candidate are the enemy instead of Barack Obama).
I know whereof I speak. For merely challenging the conventional wisdom-- read intensely repeated partisan mantra chanting-- that Rick Perry is the only electable Republican candidate suitable to challenge Barack Obama in the Nov. general election, I was viciously and repeatedly attacked by the Perrybots with everything from silly name calling to vulgar full out profanity (of the f bomb variety).
Oh, I know, partisan fervor for one's pet candidate is perhaps to be expected in this period of the primaries of a major political party in a Presidential election year. But what is most troubling however is the Perrybots, (and/or other hyper partisan primary activists, as noted above), seem particularly intransigent and unable to see the merits in any position or candidate but theirs. And one thing repeatedly emerges from my discussions, (more like political shouting matches!) with such persons. Any divergence from the “party line” of their rabid support for their candidate is deemed as unworthy of reply and/or invitation to utter yet more untested (and often untrue) conclusory claims of claimed infallibility of “their guy.”
Don't get me wrong, I actually and personally find many of Perry's political positions in line with my own; his pledge to return politicians in Washington to a position as “citizen legislators,” his promise to reduce government regulation, and his fair tax plan are all ideas long championed by the ACLP and this author personally. But the error of such a purist position as espoused by the Perrybots will be immediately apparent to those with any experience whatsoever in national politics.
Rather, those versed in electoral politics and national political strategy will recognize such claims and tactics for what they are: invalidly reasoned and dangerous to both our body politic as well as Republican chances for victory in November; Indeed, they belie a radical and naïve misunderstanding about how the American electoral process actually works, (to say nothing of the danger of “faction” of which the Founders warned in Federalist number 10).
Indeed, such a position reeks of the kind of purity and “litmus tests” that make the tea party appear moderate to its most ardent leftist critics, (a feat in itself!) and leads to the obvious (and ominous?) question which we must here address, namely:
Do such attitudes and actions of the hyperpartisans undermine the eventual Republican nominee and/or portend a broader challenge to the defeat of Barack Obama by encouraging the rise of a third party bid for the presidency? Such a question is not merely academic.
Indeed, the fact is that a credible and forceful third party candidate has in the past proven disastrous for the GOP and/or the country's ability to elect a Republican Administration at various critical times in America's history, (most recently and notably in the 1992 and 1996 elections which saw Bill Clinton elected without a majority of the popular vote due to the Ross Perot and Ralph Nader candidacies).
So it is with all seriousness, and with such a possibility in mind, that I find it necessary to address some of the wholly conclusory claims repeated ad nauseum by Perry supporters which have been posited as sheer fact, (unless of course you would prefer the corrupt, corporate cronyism and job killing policies of the Obama Administration for another four years, in which case you can disregard what I am about to say).
With these principles in mind then I address the following (and demonstrably false) claims of the hyperpartisan Perrybots:
1) Rick Perry is only candidate with proven history of “winning” and thus only electable candidate.
In discussing this issue with some of the Perrybots it often comes up that since Rick Perry has won several state wide elections in Texas and has a successful electoral history there he is therefore the only electable candidate for our country in the Nov. elections. But this ignores that there is a big difference between the overwhelmingly conservative electorate of Texas and the deeply divided constituencies in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania which the GOP desperately needs if it is to win a national election, (critical to offset Democratic advantages in places like California and New York).
In fact, one Perrybot in particular who I had been supportive of in the past, (indeed, she had been instrumental in my joining the call for Perry to NOT drop out prematurely when it appeared after the Iowa Caucuses that he would do so), explicitly argued that many Perry supporters in Texas were conservative Democrats, (seemingly oblivious to the fact that this actually weakens the argument for Perry in the broader national electorate instead of strengthens it because Mr. Perry cannot count on such a conservative constituency in the nation as a whole in a general election). Thus this argument is clearly erroneous.
2) Rick Perry's economic record in Texas makes him the best (and only!) acceptable Gop candidate.
While the Perrybots repeatedly trumpet the economic record of Governor Perry in the State of Texas as proof he is the only acceptable Gop candidate, (an economic record by the way which is admittedly praiseworthy), it conflates the Texas legislature's constituency with the nation's, (which is much less homogeneously conservative). Thus, while we can certainly agree such things as tort reform, lower regulation and lower taxes are needed to jumpstart our economy and create jobs, it is sheer presumption to assume that only Rick Perry, of all the qualified Republican candidates, would promote such policies, or that it wouldn't take an exceptionally well versed national leader with the proven ability to reach across the partisan divide and achieve the kind of bi-partisan support that would be necessary to pass such legislation at the national level. (Indeed, on that score, Perry's efforts in Texas working with conservative Democrats that are now all but extinct in the current Congress is utterly irrelevant, because the Perry Administration's natural political affinity to work with state Democrats who for all practical purposes would be considered moderate Republicans in Washington does not therefore in fact evidence his alleged and much vaunted ability to compromise and engage in bi-partisan leadership Perry supporters often tout in favor of his bid for the national Presidency).
3) Rick Perry is the only acceptable candidate because if the presumed front runner Mitt Romney could not beat former nominee McCain, how can he beat Obama who McCain couldn't beat in 2008?
This one is so obviously illogical that it is almost ridiculous to have to refute it, but since the Perrybots repeat it with a straight face I address it briefly.
Most obviously, Mitt Romney is clearly not the only other candidate besides Rick Perry in this race. Indeed, while Romney may be best financed and organized, the recent rise of Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich's nipping at Romney's heels in S. Carolina proves that, if nothing else, the Republican race is still fluid, (although Romney is certainly rising as other candidates drop out, as we expected).
Moreover, anyone who follows politics knows that the dynamics of 2008 are entirely different than those in 2012.
First of all, in light of Obama's running as a uniting centrist in 2008, (which he has not governed as), it is doubtful if any Republican candidate could have won against Obama in light of the push of the youth vote and others caught up in the historic election of the nation's first African American President.
Secondly, as any political watchers know, the only reason Romney didn't win the nomination in 2008 was Huckabee's successfully working with and running interference for McCain to frustrate Romney's bid, (particularly in the then-critical W. Virginia primary).
Third, to assume that Romney's chances in 2012 are somehow weakened due to McCain's not winning in 2008, and thus warrants supporting Rick Perrry now, (but see first point about other credible candidates above), is contrary to political history. To the contrary, history shows that a candidate often is only successful after multiple attempts due to increased name recognition and the “legacy” voters who often might vote for a candidate second time around who were previously peeled away by other candidates seen as more desirable, (such as Huckabee in 2008).
4) A more energized base for Perry will propel him to November victory.
Again, the Perrybots show an astounding lack of political understanding. Contrary to the implication of this argument, it is not the party base which determines elections. In other words, and in philosophical terms, an active base is necessary but not sufficient for electoral victory in a general election. Rather, the deciding factor in a general election is the independents and moderates in the middle, who all polls show don't favor another Texan for President, (while it may be unfair, Perry'sTexas swagger, accent, and questionable debate skills remind independents too much of Bush W who they were not enthused about on a variety of issues too many to detail here). This is so because the partisans, (those with strong feelings or party affiliation, either Democrat or Republican), will generally support their party's nominee in the end regardless. That leaves only the independents and those “in the middle,” as they say, to be the only ones subject to persuasion and who the vast majority of ads will be geared to in the Fall, (not rocket science here. Btw, now you know why this switch from trying to woo the base in primaries can lead to awkward lurches to the middle in the general election in absence of a unifying campaign theme).
Moreover, as much as the Perrybots don't like to admit it, prior state economic results, while important, are not the only factors necessary to win an election in the age of television. Rather, things like a presidential air, debating skill, and even things such as “looks,” (and, if you can believe it, the height of candidates!), all play a role in a modern national campaign-- along with more core things as state organizations to get out the vote and ability to fundraise the kind of money necessary to compete with the expected billion dollar war chest being raised by Obama and the Democrats!-- are all factors that will be critical to a successful general election.
Indeed, contrary to the claims of the uninformed, the longer a divisive nominating contest goes on, the more damaged the Gop in general becomes in the perception of the voters, and the harder it will be for the eventual nominee to win in November.5) Perry is the “outsider” candidate who can reach across aisle and “get things done” in Washington.
While there is no doubt that Rick Perry is a credible, conservative candidate that may have much to recommend him to the Presidency, it is stretching the truth to call a man who has spent 26 years in politics an “outsider.” In fact, one of the “chinks in Perry's armour,” according to former tea party candidate Michelle Bachman, (R-MN), is his career politician ways and according penchant for crony capitalism. Indeed, Ms. Bachman openly questioned Perry's ties to drug companies like Merck, who she suggested was behind Perry's anti-family Guardisal vaccination plan which automatically required parents to vaccinate their children against sexually transmitted disease). Indeed, one could rather make a strong argument that those who have not spent the majority of their lives in politics as Perry has would make a better contrast with Obama in November. Accordingly, this argument made by the Perrybots lacks merit.
In closing, perhaps the Perry crowd will pull it out in the end, (as increasingly unlikely as that is, it is still early in the process and technically possible). However, in order to do so, at least in a credible way that can win over the moderates in the middle who will determine the outcome in November and guard against the real possibility of a deadly third party bid, the hyperpartisan Perrybots are going to have to come up with better arguments than they have shown themselves capable of thus far. jp
No comments:
Post a Comment