Monday, February 11, 2008
Why Republicans Will Lose in 2008, Part II
Republicrats piece by
David R. Usher
Those who want to know why Republicans will lose in 2008 should ask Senator John McCain. McCain has demonstrated uncanny consistency changing the subject whenever someone asks a legitimate question on core social issues. This is the fatal shortcoming for both Senator McCain, and the G.O.P. as well.
An analysis of his speech given at the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) convention last week does not speak volumes indicating a Republican victory in 2008. [ see http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24891 ]
The most remarkable aspect of his speech is the long list of core social kitchen-table issues important to mainstream America that are not even mentioned in his speech. The words marriage, illegitimacy, wedlock (and out-of-wedlock), gay marriage, same-sex marriage, single mother(hood), and domestic violence were missing entirely from his platform of promises.
The only word of interest—“reform”—occurs just once in his talk—albeit what he was referring to remains a mystery. Says McCain: ”I will fight for the line item veto, and I will not permit any expansion whatsoever of the entitlement programs that are bankrupting us. On the contrary, I intend to reform those programs so that government is no longer in that habit of making promises to Americans it does not have the means to keep”.
McCain has never weighed in on core social reform issues in the past. His complete lack of spine fighting the war on marriage, waged by our own federal government against its own people, is tantamount to pretending that the war on terror can be won by doing nothing more than promising to win it and then changing the subject to something more convenient.
Approximately half of Americans are trapped on the field of the war on marriage. Some demand more welfare than is economically possible, the rest are stripped to their skivvies and then locked up. It all starts with the American Bar Association, our $700-billion-per-year HHS budget, and making women think they can do better by marrying Uncle Sam instead of having a husband or marrying the father of their children.
McCain is wrong merely offering “free market solutions” as a response to Democrat’s call for socialized medicine. “Free market solutions” are essentially what we have now. The buyers who cannot afford health insurance are largely single-mothers. This structural problem must be reversed – by restoring a free marriage market. The only alternative is socialized health care. Republicans have one possible choice: take up “Marriage Values” and restore a “Marriage Economy”, or eventually give in to public opinion and Democrat demands. The fact is this: when federal government ends permanent entitlement of divorce and illegitimacy, three-quarters of our health care problems will abate naturally.
McCain is also wrong about appointing judges to the federal bench “who are intent on achieving political changes that the American people cannot be convinced to accept through the election of their representatives.” This is where Roe v. Wade came from. Activist courts are not the answer. In any event, activist courts could never undo the damage done to marriage by federal spending. It is ludicrous, and an abdication of legislative and executive constitutional responsibility, to believe that marriage would ever be put back together from the bench. In light of previous comments he has made about divorce at whistle stops, this certainly appears to be what Mr. McCain has in mind.
McCain did make a sage comment, perhaps precognizing his own loss next November: “Often elections in this country are fought within the margins of small differences.” The margin of difference between Democrats and Republicans is about as wide and deep as the Cooley dam. The abysmal lack of solutions that Republicans have offered puts them in a tremendous one-down position.
As we have seen over the past decade, Republicans will continue losing seats in Congress. The party of so-called “compassionate conservatives” without a message that actually brings about restoration of the American family – giving most everyone what they want and need – simply does not register with even the most uniformed voters. There are, however, a lot of voters who will give in to expansionist socialist cries about the poverty and health problems of children and single mothers, crime, domestic violence, violence against women, and child support arrearages. Obama’s message is honed and prepared to slice and dice any candidate the Republicans put up against him.
Social conservatives and mainstreamers brought about the “family values” landslide of 1994 by nationwide hard work of the grassroots. In 2008, the landslide is going the other way: the G.O.P. is dumping dirt on anyone who cares about “Marriage Values” and restoring a competitive “Marriage Economy” in America.
For those who still do not understand the keystone importance of establishing a “marriage economy”, let me describe it very simply. Cuba and China have strong family values. Both China and Cuba socialized business many years ago, and became very poor countries. China de-socialized business with the end of Maoism, and is now taking us to the cleaners in world markets. We are losing our competitiveness sinking under the weight of social expenditures that do little but create more social problems, taxes, and a comparatively weak work force. The key to American economic success in the 21st century depends decisively on the establishment of a “Marriage Economy”.
Political scientists and pundits who think I am incorrect about this should recognize that this article will still be here after the elections. It is better to warn them now so they have the opportunity to change course before next November. Obviously, such an awakening is quite unlikely to happen this late in the election cycle.
Perhaps after the elections, when the G.O.P. learns that it cannot win on “business as usual” they will be falling all over themselves to find out what “Marriage Values” and the “Marriage Economy” are all about. We will be ready to work with them when they are really ready to “Change America”.
David R. Usher
HowardWasRight 
more...
more... 
