Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France"was a particularly interesting read following the presidential election. Being a Republican and voting for Mitt Romney, I was obviously disappointed with the outcome of the election. Whether it be every television station constantly blasting "OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA" or just the general mood amongst my fellow Campus Republicans, I felt defeated. However, following the emotions of defeat, feelings of confusion engulfed my mind. "What went wrong?", I thought to myself. "How, as an 18 year old kid, could I possibly understand the faults and downfalls of such a complex political party?" I turned to the news for answers, channel surfing for anything that provided insight into Romney's loss. However, I was disappointed to see that rather than analyzing the loss and attempting to move forward, my fellow Republicans were playing the blame game.
 | ||
| Cartoon displaying the blame game. Rather than taking responsibility, Republicans are turning on each other. From: http://cultureroi.com |
2) In the news article "For Glum Republicans, especially at Fox News, Blame Game Begins", the author writes, "Former Democratic pollster Pat Caddell offered that Romney had run “the worst campaign in the history of modern” campaigns. Among the candidate’s failures: not attacking Obama on the issue of Libya and the death of four Americans in a September terrorist attack; and failing to have an alternative message to keep himself in the news when Hurricane Sandy struck the Eastern Seaboard."
3) The Black Panthers stood outside voting locations and intimidated voters to vote for Obama and not Romney.
4) Men and Women in the military did not receive their ballots, and these votes would have gone towards Romeny.
5) Members of the Republican base and the tea party blamed Romney for being too moderate, even though polls showed that it was with the minority voters and women that he lost by a landslide.
6) Rush Limbaugh states in a post election audio segment that do we need to embrace illegal immigrants and pass around birth control pills to win the election.
 |
| Rush Limbaugh passionately makes comments as described above to public. From: www.i4u.com |
The list goes on and on. Rather than members of my party reevaluating their positions on certain issues or understanding the progressive nature of our times, instead, they live in denial and stubbornness. So now, as a student of Political Science at the University of Michigan, I will attempt to understand such a loss by taking into account the political theories discussed in our class. Specifically, that of Edmund Burke and Classical Conservatism. While of course the reason for Republican failure during this election is very complex, I can analyze statistics and why they may exist. Statistically speaking, Romney loss votes in demographics including both non-whites and women. Voters who are represented in these demographics are not usually proponents of super conservative ideology. The basic positions of the Republican base, which are incredibly conservative and "somewhat resemble" those of Burke (even though our American Conservatism is not the same as Burke's Classical European Conservatism) can be held potentially responsible for this loss of votes and therefore needs to be analyzed.
Burke's idea of traditionalism and stability refer to the political ideas that change needs to occur only if needed, and if it does occur, it needs to be very gradual. These ideas form the foundation for modern conservatism as well. In Romeny's campaign, he makes references to the founding fathers, declaration of independence, and constitution constantly. These references reveal commitment to maintaining tradition and that which has come before us. Burke's disapproval of the French Revolution also directly exhibits his ideas of tradition and staying true to the currently accepted way of governing. These parallels between Classical Conservatism and American Conservatism provide insight into why things may have gone off course for the Republicans. Their views are just to similar, and therefore this form of American Conservatism needs to changed.
 | |
| It is called the Republican Party, not the Conservative Party. Republicans are too far right!!! From: humboldtherald.com |
The main premise of my post is that American Republicans are misunderstanding what it means to be conservative. Taking Burke's points literally is a naive mindset, not understanding that the 21st century American World is a progressive one. The fact that marijuana has been legalized in some states and that gay marriage has been as well directly reinforces this notion. Obama didn't win because of his economic platform or his reputation as a "good guy", but he won because of his liberal agenda and his understanding of an evolving American Society. The need to be conservative is the driving force in the collapse of the Republican Party. Hopefully, this realization will be experienced by our Republican leaders and the party can be saved!
Edited on 11/20/12
Yes, I think an argument can be made that Obama won because of his liberal agenda, however, I'm not sure that Mitt Romney necessarily lost because of his association with the Republican party. You talk about Burke's ideas of tradition and stability, which are part of being conservative, but in my opinion, there were parts of Romney's campaign, which actually contradicted these ideas. For example, Romney's stance on the issue of abortion constantly changed. I attached an article below for more specifics, but in 1994, he endorsed Roe vs. Wade, and a woman's right to choose what to do with her body. In 2002, he was pro choice. Then in 2005, he came out as pro-life, but aid that he would maintain his pro choice status. Later on, he made attempts to veto pro-choice legislation and denied that he was ever a pro choice candidate. His stance continued to change, as he emerged for the 2012 election as a pro-life president who would take measures on that side of the issue, concerning it. This is a prime example of something that (I think) hurt his campaign. Mitt Romney had a hard time standing by his beliefs. I didn't vote for Mitt Romney for this reason. It's not that I didn't like some of the stances of the Republican party, but instead, I felt that I could not vote a candidate into office who didn't make it clear what side he was taking. Perhaps if there had been a Republican candidate who stood by their views the entire time, they could have taken the election.
ReplyDeletehttp://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/10/11/992801/mitt-romneys-constantly-evolving-stance-on-abortion/?mobile=nc
I agree with Sari. As a whole, I think that the Republican party is going to lose until they stop refuting social advancement. I understand that the Republican party is crafted around trying to restrict the influence of government on individuals' rights, but this election season I, too, didn't vote for Romney because of a) what Sari said and b) because I just can't put up with the Republican outlook on many social issues. Society is rapidly changing, as you accurately note, and this traditional approach taken by the Republicans can only be *acceptable* for so long.
ReplyDeleteThere's been debate whether or not the economic or social issue is more important from this past election. In the economic corner, Obama himself isn't going to ruin our country, just like Romney himself wouldn't. Neither one man can "save" the failing economy, although I'm no expert. It's one big, complex process, full of finger-pointing as you mention. I'm in no way strictly democratic; I think that Romney had wonderful potential on some issues, but I just can't stand to see someone so flip-floppy about social issues.
Your Republican party will survive, and I think this ugly election was necessary for a vital change; hopefully everybody involved in politics will second guess what went on--the pointing fingers, smirks during debates, extensive campaigning costs--and work together to make American politics cleaner. That said, I'm afraid that on the brink of such pressing and divisive social issues, this won't happen for quite some time. We shall see in four years!
Thanks for the insight guys. Again to clarify for Sari, I was not referring to Romney as necessarily super conservative but I was referring to the Republican party as such. Romney does not just represent himself, but he represents the core of the party that he is affiliated with. I think I even said that many said that Romney was too moderate. In the general election, many people voted for party rather than candidate. Specifically, people voted for a progressive Democratic Party rather than a conservative Republican Party, regardless of who the actual candidates were.
ReplyDeleteMarc - I enjoyed reading your post. I definitely agree with your point that many Republicans played the blame game after the election. The other day on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, I witnessed some great clips that portrayed the "sore loser" attitude a lot of people on Fox News have displayed. Multiple people were complaining about how "convenient" it was that news about the Patraeus sex scandal came out on Tuesday (election day) at 5pm. HMMMM sounds pretty fishy...I don't know how that news would have helped Romney win if it leaked before the election, but screw it. I think this behavior is very detrimental to the party. Although I voted for Romney as well, I prefer to take a stance similar to yours by accepting the defeat and trying to figure out what is wrong with the party nowadays. The Republican party as a whole generates a paradox that just makes the whole thing seem confusing. The party has double standards. A party that constantly claims the government should not be too big and involved in your life (through things like taxation), in theory should also be in favor of a government that lets individuals choose their own actions (abortion should be allowed, gay marriage acceptable, etc.) Unless the old cranky conservatives get with the times and really support freedoms they will have a better shot at putting a candidate in office.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMarc... I think this post is really well written and honest. I think that you really did a great job at presenting a historical political philosophy and then applying it to a modern day context. I agree with the fact that the Republican Party is in a bad state and that this is partially due to its misunderstanding of what it means to be conservative. However, I would like to add that another fault with modern day conservatism is not just the degree to how far right the party is, but that there are multiple versions of conservative that applies to different voters. If accepted conservatism was more moderate, many voters down south would be turned off by the party. If it was too conservative (like you refer too) the party would loose minority votes and independents. I think that the problem is that the party is not necessarily too conservative, but that conservatism needs to be reevaluated and not just rearranged on the spectrum of right to moderate. As you said the reason that Romney lost is complex, but the reason why the party lost is much simpler. The Republican Party needs to reevaluate the entire premise of their political mission.
ReplyDelete