My prophetic powers are limited, but in their place far superior to those of the charlatans and fools who get paid the big bucks for their prognostications. As soon as I saw the line-up of contenders for the Republican GOP nomination, I knew two things:
- Mitt Romney was going to get the nomination, being just the kind of clean suit that conservatives fall for.
- Mitt would not win the general election.
Neither hazarded upshot proved any great mastery of the fatidic arts. One could even say they bordered on the obvious. So why did so many folks fall for more “hopeful” prophecies? Well, I’ve already suggested the answer: hope. I have none. At least, I place no hope in any political party, do not trust conservatives, and know the limitations of my fellow citizens as voters and potential redeemers of the body politic.
I haven’t been writing much down-in-the-dirt politics as such, so I can’t unearth something apt, from early in the race, but only my most recent foray, from September:
The idea of putting Romney up to challenge Obama was insane on the face of it. He may be a decent man in his private life, but as a businessman he’s associated with the insiders who bailed themselves out to the tune of many trillions. His policies are relentlessly middle of the road, while right now we should be running from the Bush/Obama rush towards Centralized Everything and Progressive Debt. Romney even promoted the Massachusetts template for Obamacare, the Democrats’ dirigistic mess of “reform” for medical institutions, which will increase costs and further scuttle any real competition that could improve services and reduce prices in the health care industry. Further, Romney’s a worse warmonger than Obama, despite the fact that Obama has broken his promise as a Peace candidate by starting wars, continuing wars, and murdering innocents with drone strikes in multiple countries. To be worse than Obama on this is to offer no alternative at all.
Selecting Romney was a step back, for Romney exuded mainstream lack of interest in substantial change. His vacuity and lack of Tea Party strength translated directly into a lack of appeal to independent voters. Indeed, the only way to oppose the Democrats’ commitment to socialistic fantasy is to sell common sense and sell it hard. But you can’t do that by muddying up the message with extraneous social conservative obsessions (one common conservative error) or by selecting a candidate by the cut of his suit (another common conservative error). Until Republicans decide to embrace truly limited government principles, their national electoral success depends on the quirks of personality politics and on lying about policy — which, as strategies, can work only intermittently.
The Republicans threw away their two chances to make a big push against the direction Obama and the Democrats had taken: Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. But Republicans are still too addicted to empire and war to choose Ron Paul, and are too fearful to consider a candidate like Johnson who might actually succeed at doing the fiscally conservative things they say they want to do. That, and Republicans are still too culturally bigoted: Johnson doesn’t talk God and Sex in the right ways, and seems uninterested in abortion.
Now Johnson is lost in the thicket of minor party politics; Ron Paul has retired. Is there any hope to be had from Republicans? Well, as I wrote last September,
Rational people must press Republicans to repent of their herdish folly. They have to stop “going along” with their witless leadership, the insiders in the party who push as “electable” numbskulls like George W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. Bush only got in by running against an arrogant a-hole (Al Gore) and having the conservatives on the Supreme Court “decide” in Bush’s favor in the infamous Florida recount, in what is probably one of the worst decisions in Supreme Court history.
Republicans: You can’t expect the Supreme Court to rig your elections every time. You have to expect that lamebrain dimwits and mainstream ninnies will normally lose (as Bush did by vote totals if not by judicial legerdemain, and McCain did any way you look at it). Mitt Romney was “electable” only if, somehow, Providence intervened. . . .
I cannot say that “Providence” was wrong not to intervene in this case. In my opinion, Republicans deserve another four years of Obama. I don’t, but they do.
Meanwhile, it looks like Providence will be unneeded to prevent a hyperinflation (that’s not in the cards), but our future under an unrestrained Obama is not likely to shine brightly, nonetheless.
Now that’s a daring prophecy!