Politics as Warfare; A Look at the 2012 Campaign

The post election Post Mortem continues, with a few items not generally discussed in the media or on talk radio. 

Doug Urbanski, the film producer, substituted for Rush Limbaugh on the day after Thanksgiving 2012.  As might be expected, the subject matter he concentrated on was the circumstances of the 2012 election and why Candidate Romney lost.  As is usual, Urbanski had a lot to say, most of which was dead on target. 

 

We should note that Urbanski has decades of experience in the film industry.  He knows presentation and he knows what sells.  Thus, his observations deserve serious attention.  Also, important, a significant aspect of his prescriptions has been something this writer has been attempting to promote, under the radar, ever since the Clinton Administration. 

 

The key issue here wasn’t Romney, even though some people may make the case, while pointing at people who refused to vote for him.  As Ann Coulter recently pointed out, Romney had a lot in common with candidate Ronald Reagan of 1980.  What mattered more was that Romney failed to do what was necessary, whether by personal design, or due to bad advice.  As Urbanski put it, Romney campaigned to govern, not to win. 

 

What I believe, and what Urbanski hinted at is the old rule: “know thy enemy.”  Today’s Republican Party and those who manage it have failed horribly in this lesson.  It appears that they are still looking at the elections rather like an athletic contest with no great shakes standing on the outcome.  After all, they seem to say, we are all Americans and we all want the best for the nation.  However, this is no longer true, and some commentators would assert that it hasn’t been true for about a century.  The writings and actions or Woodrow Wilson certainly support this view.  And meanwhile, the Democrat Party has changed, and has little in common with that of the party of half a century ago.  

 

The key difference today is that the modern Democrat Party has become anti-American and has been for some time.  Its primary motivation is a desire for power, and party functionaries quite frankly don’t give a darn what they need to do to get it.  The only thing they may be unwilling to do as yet is kill, and there are some who will argue this point pointing to the deaths of Vince Foster and Ron Brown as evidence.  But regardless, what must be recognized are the desire for power, the willingness to do virtually anything for it, and the finally, the simple fact that to them, politics is everything and everything is political. 

 

The plain fact is that the modern Democrat “Progressive” sees the contest, not as matter of little consequence, but rather as WAR.  Republicans are not a loyal opposition; they are THE ENEMY.  Anyone who opposes the quest for power must be eliminated and their opposition must be “proved” illegitimate, even if it is legitimate, which leads further to the use of negative advertising, false information and incessant propaganda.  It is a formula the Joseph Goebbels would be proud of.

 

If we look back on the 2012 campaign we see the Democrat Party and its associates attacking Candidate Romney as soon as it appeared likely that he would be the nominee.  No criticism was harsh enough.  He was cruel to animals; he caused the death of someone’s wife; he was a felon; all baseless charges that were leveled at him.  Because he opposed their candidate and in so doing, their agenda he became Frankenstein, and Frankenstein must be destroyed. 

 

The Republicans Party, at least so far, has not understood the nature of the conflict.  It has allowed the opposition to control the “game” and make the rules.  Whether in combat onr in an athletic contest, when the opposition makes the rules, it becomes virtually impossible to win.  In such cases, it is only when you change the rules to your advantage that you can prevail.  As Mr. Urbanski pointed out, Gandhi was able to prevail against the British in India because he understood their strengths and weaknesses.  He moved the contest over control of India into areas where he was strong and the Brits were weak.  Much of today’s contest in the US is being fought in the media, yet the vast majority of the media, whether entertainment, information or education are controlled by the left.  And the Republicans/Conservatives do little or nothing about it.

 

Another Urbanski point is that the Democrats target the uninformed, the naive, the distracted, (and I would also assert, the stupid and foolish).  They campaign nationwide, while the Republicans have chosen to target the “swing states and swing voters” but they do not target them effectively because they refused to offend anyone or raise controversy.  The one candidate who did this before he was eliminated from the primary race (quite possibly by falsified evidence) was Herman Cain, whose 9-9-9 plan was able to dominate discussion for some time.  But Romney did not get specific, as Cain did.  Thus, as Urbanski, again indicates, Cain was a more effective candidate in controlling the conversation.

 

Now the Democrats also have another ace up their sleeve, as Texas state senator Dan Patrick recently indicated on his evening radio program.  The Democrats in Harris County, Texas, (wherein lies Houston) have a much greater level of electoral discipline.  They vote straight ticket to a much greater degree than Republicans.  This behavior reflects the essential monoculture that exists in Democrat behavior once the candidates are chosen.  Republicans, in contrast vote as individuals, and some refused to vote for Mitt Romney because he:

 

Wasn’t conservative enough;

Wasn’t libertarian enough;

Wasn’t a “Christian” because he was a member of the LDS Church;

And so on. 

 

This lack of discipline, or of party unity is recipe for losing. 

 

Countering all of the above problems may be very difficult.  While Hillary Clinton was wrong and there never was a “vast right wing conspiracy” there is a vast left wing conspiracy in operation and it has been there, in varying degrees since the Woodrow Wilson Administration.  To counter its presence Republicans must not descend into the mediocrity of moderation, but confront the opposition head on.  While it cannot resurrect Ronald Reagan, it can use his strategies and tactics.  As Ann Coulter points out in a recent column, Reagan’s past was a checkered as Romney’s in policy changes.  He was governor of California, and some of his decisions there reflected that state’s liberalism.  But his bold conservatism cut through the fog of war and prevailed. 

 

During the last half century or so the American military has been fighting with one or more of its hands tied behind its back.  Thus, it has been prevented from achieving the victory that “total war” would have achieved and probably suffered more casualties and PTSD effects as a result.  Republicans are fighting the political battle with their hands tied as well.  It is time that they changed this and opted for the Total War option, and thus learned to win. 

1 comment to Politics as Warfare; A Look at the 2012 Campaign

Add Comment Register



Leave a Reply






Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner






IC Contributors