Thursday, May 31, 2012

The Most Significant Blogpost In The History Of The Internet Pt.3;R.S.McCain,Conservatives&Romney


In the light of Mitt Romney being the presumptive Republican nominee, the outstanding conservative journalist Robert Stacy McCain addressed the question as to what the conservative voters response should be.

McCain firstly expressed his forebodings (AT THIS LINK) of the Romney versus Obama outcome without mincing any words;

"Yesterday, after Rick Santorum quit, my 13-year-old son Jefferson asked, “Does this mean I have to stop bad-mouthing Mitt Romney?”

“Yeah,” I said. “It doesn’t mean you have to start good-mouthing him, but you have to stop bad-mouthing him.”
Then I went on to explain that, having been saddled with a nominee whom we had opposed with all our might, we cannot be held responsible for the inevitable disaster. Therefore, on Wednesday, Nov. 7, we will be ready to demand an accounting from those responsible.
Could I be wrong? Is there actually a chance that Mitt could win? This is a possibility that must be considered, at least as a hypothetical.

In a few weeks, when I’m covering the general election campaign, I’m going to have to try to convince myself that this is not an absurd exercise in political futility, that “President Romney” is actually within the realm of the possible, and that a Romney administration might conceivably accomplish something meaningful for the preservation of the American Republic. It is nonetheless important to emphasize that today — April 11, 2012 — I am overwhelmed by a bone-deep certainty that those who actually believe such things are fools, who are wasting their time and efforts, and now asking us to waste ours, too.
Then, when it’s all over, and people ask me, “What went wrong?” I’ll point them back to this post and say, “It was doomed from the outset.”

In a subsequent article (full article AT THIS LINK) McCain then addressed the conservative's voting position in respect of the Romney candidacy;

"Here’s the thing I want to get across to our readers: Whenever Republicans lose a presidential election, the first thing the GOP Establishment does is to focus blame on conservatives. This is why Sarah Palin was scapegoated for the 2008 defeat, because treacherous swine like Steve Schmidt and Nicolle Wallace, who get paid to win elections, don’t want to accept responsibility for their own failures.

It is therefore an urgent necessity — however painfully ironic — that hard-core grassroots conservatives give their maximum effort to help Romney defeat Barack Obama, because if Team Mitt loses this election, you will be blamed. Your honor as a conservative, to say nothing of the future of our Republic, thus requires from you even greater labors than you would have made if Rick Santorum had won the nomination.
Like I said, “painfully ironic.”

The article by Gary North that commenced this presentation, which places morality above electoral and economic considerations, would seem to lead one to support McCain's premise that conservatives should work for, and vote for Romney.

Of the two candidates Romney's recently stated positions more represents the conservative viewpoint that ethics and morality are transcendent. In the social sphere, abortion and same sex marriage are two major issues where there is an undisputed difference between Romney and Obama.

McCain's second point is that if conservatives do not support Romney in the campaign, and in November, they will be blamed by the GOP establishment for his defeat. McCain uses the clear example in the quote above of how Palin received this treatment (even though CNN's exit polling in 2008 showed that she was actually a positive influence on voters considerations).

These are powerful arguments, lets put the shoe on the other foot to show why. If Palin were the nominee instead of Romney, and the Romney supporters stated they would not work for her and would stay at home in November, the Palin supporters would, with great reason, feel aggrieved and betrayed and would blame the subsequent defeat on the Romneyite establishment. 

Further, after the inevitable loss, the conservative element (blamed for "splitting the party") would be unlikely to have another shot at a candidate of their preference getting the nomination again for a generation. It took from 1964 till 1980 for the GOP to run with another conservative after Goldwater.

Sadly for conservatives they are in a lose/lose situation. If they don't support Romney, the blame for the loss will not fall on the Romneyite faction but on the conservatives and, once again, they will face being out of power for a generation. There is however one exception to this apparent unfair rule of political life, and that is when conscience and faith supersedes all other considerations.

If Romney were of any other faith beside being a Mormon, then McCain's strictures and warnings would be indisputable, no matter how bitter a pill they would be for conservatives. If, as with Gary North, morality is above politics then the moral law, which for Christians finds its base in the true Christian faith, is the one allowable exception to the demand for all Republicans to support Romney.

If a Christian advises that their faith states explicitly that "another Gospel" is hostile to the foundations of the faith (which it is as with St.Paul) then on the grounds of conscience they must be excluded from condemnation for not voting for Romney. 

If Romney lost a close election because a substantial number of Christians had to follow their faith,which is above the politics of the moment, the "blame game' could not apply. It follows that
the conservative element must be allowed a shot at the 2016 nomination free from such attacks. If they are successful in gaining the nomination, the establishment wing must support their candidate or be accused of putting self-interest above all moral considerations.

If R.S. McCain's is correct, that the Romney nomination will be an "inevitable disaster" then the margin of loss will be so great that conservatives of conscience would not be blamed for the loss. Looking forwards from that point, what qualities might conservatives look to for their 2016 candidate? That question is addressed in the Part four conclusion of this post.

No comments: