It's always interesting after an election, especially when your side loses. Suddenly, all of the "experts" come out of the woodwork to give you their rather simple notions of how things may have turned out differently, what went wrong, who was to blame, and what needs to be done in the future. Where was all this brilliance and foresight before the elections? It's no surprise that most of these experts espouse ideas they held before the election, and their ideas were simply rejected by the others. We get a really good dose of "if you had listened to me..." and the same old idea is trotted out once again. Ron Paul supporters are literally gloating at the re-election of Barack Obama. A man who is so far removed from anything uttered by Dr. Paul, their respective ideologies exist in completely different universes, but the Paul supporters beam with pride over what they think they accomplished. Nearly 3 million registered republicans sat this election out, and are now expressing pride in what they did. That will teach the GOP to act like they did! But let's really examine some things here, shall we?
First of all, the "GOP" didn't pick Mitt Romney as the candidate to run against Barack Obama, the voters did. This was largely due to the fact that they had 9 candidates to pick from, and while most conservatives split their votes between 8 of them, the establishment republicans stuck by Romney, and he won by default. He was arguably the least conservative of all the candidates, but he wasn't so non-conservative as to upset the apple cart, and he did make an attempt to pretend to be conservative. Over and over, the "experts" told us, Romney is the only candidate who can defeat Obama. Perhaps this was true, but he didn't defeat Obama, an he leaves conservatives scratching their heads trying to figure out what to do now. The very same people who claimed Romney was the only candidate who could defeat Obama, are now telling us we need to abandon God and get away from the social issues. We need to "reach out" to women and minorities more. I personally think they are getting it wrong again, and such a direction would kill any hope of future victory. That doesn't mean we should "double down" on what failed to work, or that we need to stubbornly and defiantly stick with a message that is failing. Clearly, we need to revamp the republican strategy, but we don't do that by abandoning principles.
On abandoning God, we need to understand, Religion and Politics don't mix well. Taking religion out of republican politics doesn't have to mean, completely abandoning God. It is primarily anti-religious seculars who fuel the liberal ideology. Liberalism in general, is rooted in the belief that Government has to be our Savior, that we can't depend on faith in a God that doesn't exist. Liberals believe our rights come from man, ordained through the Constitution, and defined by the courts, they aren't endowed or inalienable. It is the foundation of conservatism to believe our rights come from our Creator and are inalienable and endowed, and not subject to determination by men. Abandoning God means we sacrifice this basic principle and concept before we begin the argument against Liberalism. It's like a NASCAR driver switching to an electric motor because he thinks the traditional motors contribute to global warming. It's a losing proposition.
Conservatism can't be successfully argued without the presence of a God, it's impossible to make a valid argument for conservative principles without the foundation conservatism is established on. That doesn't mean "religion" has to be a part of this, just the generic belief in our Creator, and endowed, inalienable rights. Many conservatives point to Ronald Reagan as a model for where we need to go, and they will point out that Reagan didn't preach social conservatism, but one of the most profound speeches the man ever made, was about a "shining city on a hill" and that is a direct Biblical reference. Reagan found the secret formula for bringing the foundation of God to the table, without introducing religion. In that respect, what republicans need to do, is find a way to articulate their message including God, but not including the religiously-based interpretations of God. That's where their problems have been. God doesn't say gay marriage or abortion is wrong, that is a religious determination based on a religious understanding of God. It's a judgement. Conservatives can stand up for the right to life without relying on religious judgement, because the Constitution explicitly states we have a right to life. The whole entire "marriage" issue can be settled easily, conservatives shouldn't support ANY governmental favoritism toward ANY social domestic arrangement. It's an issue that shouldn't even be on the table.
The main thing republicans have failed at, is not taking control of the dialogue, and allowing liberals to define the conversation and parameters. We start off in a debate about abortion and morality, when they shouldn't even matter in the debate. We try and defend an argument over "rights" of gays to marry, when we should reject any notion of special rights, we are all equally endowed with the same rights. We're hopelessly trying to argue the "how often do you beat your wife" argument, and failing. All of these issues can be rejected on the basis they shouldn't be a part of what federal government does. Smaller limited federal government should not be dictating morality of social issues, that should be left for the people and states to determine, and the federal government should return to it's rightful role in our lives.
Then there is the whole "reach out" thing. What does that really mean? Well, it means we should cater to special interest groups, like the democrats. Does anyone see a problem with our ideology if it is to pattern our opposition? Conservatives should make it clear that we "reach out" to EVERY American. Ronald Reagan brilliantly did this by introducing us to individuals, sharing their individual story with us, to illustrate his points. The democrats have had a field day with this strategy, and taken it to a whole new level, but they use it to promote special interests. We can't out-liberal the liberals, we have to return to a message rooted in equality for all, and not cater to various groups of people. We have to make the argument that, if you are Hispanic, a woman, black, or whatever, you are better off with principled conservatism which enables ALL Americans and floats ALL boats.
Finally, we need a strong conservative voice. Mitt Romney is a great guy, he has done many admirable things, he is a good man and has enormous character, but he was not a conservative who was passionately convicted to conservative principles, and that is what we needed. Who will that voice be? Many are saying, Marco Rubio. I don't know, is it because he is a minority? Or does the man have core conservative convictions, which he is able to deliver in a cohesive conservative message? Because the later is far more important than the former, I promise.
