The Faux Revolution

As more and more republicans begin to form exploratory committees to research how they might possibly fair the Republican Presidential Primary, it remains increasingly clear how much the GOP refuses to change.  The Economist penned an excellent article in 2008 that begged for the real John McCain to reemerge, rather than the candidate who chose the cantankerous, self-serving then governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin.  Beyond McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, The Economist, more importantly, criticized the GOP for losing it’s way under George W. Bush and, what’s more, neoconservatives.  Senator McCain had become popular with conservatives and centrists alike as he often decried and resisted his fellow legislators, on both sides, as bills were introduced that promised a largess to special interests, increased government debt, and reduced American hegemony, as well as many other areas of contention.  “Bring back the real John McCain,” wrote The Economist; The Moderate Dispatch agrees.  But, since that seems unlikely, the GOP needs to bring forth, not only, candidates who will separate themselves from neoconservatives, but, what’s more, candidates who can make The Party of Lincoln seem more believable. 

I live and work in an extremely conservative town.  Many of the people I have talked to think it is a mere formality that a republican will be elected president in 2012.  What many don’t understand, however, is that the 2008 election saw a splintering of the GOP.  Many registered republicans rescinded their party affiliation and became independents.  Furthermore, many voters, who considered themselves to be conservatives, voted for Obama over McCain.  While the GOP can count on the majority of rural towns across to deliver them votes, America continues to become more urban, and urban voters are continually becoming disenfranchised with a GOP that embraces more and more radical positions.  While this may be construed as a negative remark against the current conservative cause celebre, the Tea Party, it is not.   While partisans and pundits may have hijacked them, many of the original Tea Party movements in the past few years were not overtly partisan or, moreover, motivated be xenophobia.  Unfortunately, GOP partisans and wing nut pundits—like long-time neocons Dick Armey and Tom DeLay, and too-many ill-informed, greed-driven pundits—have overtly hijacked the Tea Party movement.  The American Conservative published a wonder article in April 2011 that questioned whether or not Rand Paul could bring the GOP establishment and the Tea Party together.  With the hiring of former Bush officials, Tim Pawlenty’s campaign seems to show that the GOP has not distanced themselves from Bush and the neocons. 

Perhaps it is fair; While Obama ran on a campaign that promised change and hope—as nearly most politicians do, a lot of conservative pundits and writers noted that Obama ran on the platform that he simply was not Bush.  While that charge was fair, the fact that McCain never thoroughly distanced himself from the man who was not only extremely as popular, but, what’s more, had ran an extremely filthy campaign against McCain in 2000, was very disconcerting.  McCain may still have lost in 2008, but not distancing himself from George W. Bush did not serve McCain well.  That being said, however, simply being against Obama will not win over those same independent votes that have bolted from the GOP. 

While a lot of the xenophobic base may be extremely loyal and, what’s more, loud, the GOP has a challenge in winning back the urban voter. 

(Subscribe.)