The popular perception being thrown out as the Republican Presidential Primary season begins to wind down is that Mitt Romney has not only ensured himself the position of being the Republican Presidential nominee in 2012 but that he is all but assured of defeating President Barack Obama in November of 2012 and, with his business background, will immediately restore the economy and so guarantee himself eight years in office. This belief, put bluntly, is ridiculous and true fantasy. Here is why:
Scenario One: Mitt Romney Loses the 2012 Presidential Race
Though Romney does have the lead in the number of delegates who are bound to vote for him on the first ballot at the Republican National Convention, there is absolutely no enthusiasm for him as the nominee. Many voters who supported other contenders in the GOP race have pledged that they will not vote for him, whether it is because of Romney’s apparent façade on the social issues such as abortion or because he has endorsed certain irresponsible spending policies. Nothing Romney says will ever change that perception.
So where will so many of these voters go? Look outside the Romney-Obama race and there is the answer. The Republican Party, put bluntly, has had three major defections during the primary season and all three of these candidates appeal to those voters who feel betrayed by the Republican Party and its rejection of the values of Ronald Reagan.
Former Governor Gary Johnson of New Mexico has split from the Republican Party and joined the Libertarian Party. As his message primarily deals with economics, he will most likely appeal to voters disgusted with Romney and Obama’s financial irresponsibility and so expect him to grow his vote by appealing to those voters who are looking for someone endorsing sound economic policies and has a background to prove his sincerity.
Former Congressman Virgil Goode of Virginia has also split from the Republican Party. He has been nominated as the presidential candidate of the Constitution Party. His message too deals with economics and endorses sound economic policy, but Goode’s largest advantage in the presidential race is actually on the social issues. He is truly Pro-Life and has a record to back it up. He also stands with the Right on other social conservative issues. When the additional point is made that Goode is currently the only candidate on enough state election ballots to win the presidency who stands with the Right on the social issues, then one can expect a substantial majority of social issues voters to defect to Goode’s campaign and thereby punish the Republican Party for abandoning its Pro-Life, social issues stances of the past.
Former Governor Buddy Roemer of Louisiana also has abandoned the Republican Party after being very shoddily treated throughout the Republican Presidential primary process. Not invited to a single Republican Primary debate, despite being a prominent Republican former officeholder, Roemer’s break with the Republican Party came very easily. He sought the presidential nomination of the suspended Americans Elect organization and is now focusing on obtaining the presidential nominations of the Reform Party, the Modern Whig Party and possibly a few more minor parties, thereby seeking to build a coalition to power his third party bid for the White House in 2012. He has been preaching to the voters about the dangers of government power and that message will appeal to many voters who may have flocked to the Republican Party with the hopes of dismantling the powerful Establishment organization in Washington DC built by Bush, Obama and several past presidents, but now severely disappointed at the apparent nomination of Romney, who is seen as a member of that Establishment. Also Roemer, as an officeholder who has served in both the Democratic and Republican Parties, can appeal across party lines and to independents as his party-switching can be portrayed as happening because he is a man who sticks to his principles. That image is even more attractive to many independents when compared to the political flip-flopping done by Romney and Obama.
Faced with these three candidacies from former Republicans, the anti-Obama vote will be severely divided. The majority of voters will definitely reject Obama, but like Clinton in 1992 and 1996, Obama will win with a plurality of the popular vote. Faced with these, it can be said that Romney has embarked on a losing campaign in 2012 and America is doomed to see another four years of Obama in the White House.
Scenario Two: 2016 - The Return of Obama or Worse
What if Mitt Romney overcomes all the odds and wins the Presidency in 2012? What happens then?
It is true that Romney will be free to implement the reforms he has been calling for, and the day of reckoning in terms of America’s debt, will probably be postponed for a little longer, but unless real and true system change is put forward, nothing is really going to stop the oncoming financial disaster. America will still be headed towards a financial cliff, just at a slower speed and none of the nation’s moral problems will be solved either.
Why is this? To put it bluntly, the budget plans that Governor Mitt Romney and his ally Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) have put forward for the federal government will not solve the nation’s debt problems in time to save America from the financial cliff it is fast-approaching. The budget will not be balanced until 2040 under these plans and according to analysts who correctly predicted our nation’s current problems such as Patrick J. Buchanan and Peter Schiff, America does not have that much time left. Buchanan’s most recent prediction has given America until 2025 at the latest to survive in its current condition. Schiff has predicted that another economic bubble will burst around 2013 and that it will have been caused by more irresponsible government monetary practices. With these facts in mind, what will happen if Romney somehow overcomes the odds and convinces enough Americans to vote for him that he defeats Obama?
To begin with, Romney will be cursed with the albatross of an exploded economic bubble sometime after he takes office. It will be very much like when Herbert Hoover took office in 1929 and was cursed with the Great Depression just a few months later. As a businessman president, trying to keep businesses from failing because of their irresponsible economic practices, Romney will probably be forced to resort to more economic stimulus in order to try and prevent more businesses from failing, no matter how unpopular it is. This will lead to instant charges of hypocrisy and will prevent Romney from implementing his new tax plan or from cutting any more taxes. He will be forced to keep them where they are in order to keep the government at least somewhat solvent. The economy, as it has since 2008, will not recover and will continue to limp along in its slowly downward-spiraling state.
This continued state of the American economy will lead to voters crying out that the Republicans have betrayed them. Backlash like the one which took place in 2006 and 2008, will lead to Democrats regaining popularity and what does that point to? The Democrats will claim that their program under Obama was interrupted and not allowed to finish. With this in mind, the Democrats will be looking forward to 2016 with high expectancy and will be all ready to nominate someone to resume the program that Obama started.
For anyone who thinks a defeat of Barack Obama in 2012 ends his political career, think again. Constitutionally, Obama will be eligible for one more four year presidential term, so if he is defeated in 2012, he can always run again in 2016. However, if Obama’s defeat is bad enough, the Democrats may indeed look beyond Obama for a candidate even more radical then he is. Who will that be? That is anyone’s guess at this point. It is the author’s suspicion, however, that the more-radical-then-Obama candidate could end up being one of two candidates: either self-described socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont or Harvard law school professor Elizabeth Warren. Warren would probably be the more powerful candidate as she would not only be endorsing many of the same policies as Obama with a more radical trend but, if nominated, would have the added distinction of being the first female to head a major party ticket. Sanders, on the other hand, would provide a background of long devotion to Obama-type ideals and a long record in Congress to back up his stances and make him look like a truly devoted candidate.
Faced with these three prospective candidates and an economy going downhill faster then ever, Romney would have no chance of winning re-election and come 2017, America would be right back where they started with either Obama’s return or the arrival of someone more radical.
What is to be Done
There is a hope for a solution to both scenarios, despite what all the odds say. The option lies in the power of the checks and balances given by America’s Founding Fathers in the Constitution; the power to check the Executive Branch. Namely: Congress. To the advantage of the grassroots organizations, the Establishment has been unable to control many of the congressional races with candidates of their own choosing. The Tea Party beat out the Republican Party Establishment with nominations for several fiscally responsible, socially conservative, small government candidates in the 2010 elections. Among them: Rand Paul in Kentucky, Mike Lee in Utah, Ron Johnson in Wisconsin, Justin Amash in Michigan and several others. Many were elected and are now serving in Congress trying to check President Obama’s attempts to grab more power. Now, in 2012, more Tea Party candidates are being put forward as candidates for seats in the House and Senate. Richard Mourdock in Indiana, Kurt Bills in Minnesota, Josh Mandel in Ohio and Thomas Massie in Kentucky are examples of Tea Party candidates already selected to run in the 2012 elections who fit these profiles, but there are many more. These are the candidates who should be campaigned for the hardest.
Why? The logic is as follows. The President does not make the laws. Congress does. Congress introduces bills, votes on bills and passes bills. They have the power to override a President’s veto of bills and to remove a President through impeachment for abuse of power. This means that Congress is a much more important government body to take control of.
So if the Tea Party takes control of Congress, then whoever wins the Presidency will be in a very tough position. Obama will threaten vetoes against any government shrinking, quicker debt-solving bills, but those vetoes can be overridden. Romney will have a tough time opposing bills calling for government de-regulation or quicker solutions to the nation’s debt that his own party is sending him. Overall, the people will finally be making their voice heard. That is how the country nullifies the impact of an Obama second term or a Romney presidency and heeds the warnings of prophets like Buchanan and Schiff. Then once the downward economic spiral is halted, the Tea Party can finally look forward to putting one of their own in the White House in the 2016 elections and so continue the great task of saving America from its path of financial ruin.
© 2012 New Agora and The Subsidiarity Times. All rights reserved. This material may not be re-published, re-broadcast, re-written or re-distributed without written permission from blog author.
No comments:
Post a Comment