The Myth of Electability

I find it interesting that the same people who are pushing Mitt Romney as the most electable Republican were telling us four years ago that John McCain was the most electable. So what's changed? In case you've forgotten, Mitt Romney was running in that race too. If he's so electable now, why wasn't he four years ago? Why did we have to go with McCain?

The difference is that in 2008 Romney was more conservative than the moderate McCain ...a maverick who was proud of bucking his party and working with Democrats on bills like McCain-Feingold. (Don't forget to thank John when you're watching your favorite SuperPac ad.) Electable doesn't mean the strongest candidate who eloquently articulates conservative principles. It means the man who runs to the middle because, "that's where elections are won", and in 2008 that man was John McCain. That's why the establishment pushed him all the way to the White House, right?

Oh wait...that's why he went down in flames. Because he was a man with no core principles. He would rail against the Republicans for passing tax cuts without spending cuts, but then supported the big government bailout known as TARP. Which cost us more? His moderation didn't make him electable, it made him forgettable. While Barack Obama had an idealistic campaign of "Hope and Change" with no substance to back it up, McCain had no memorable theme at all. He wasn't inspirational and not even really all that likeable. He was the epitome of Reagan's "pale pastels".

Four years later and nothing has changed. The previously unelectable Mitt Romney has suddenly become the most electable because he's now the most moderate. That's all that matters to the the Republican elites. In their minds, we need "a candidate who will make Barack Obama the issue." Again, that is code for moderate. Someone who won't ruffle too many feathers with any dramatic changes. In other words, we can't pick a true conservative who will drastically rollback the size of government. That person won't appeal to the center, which means he can't win. That's what they say, and they must be right since they do this all the time and are so much smarter than the rest of us.

The establishment has history on the side too. Gerald Ford, Bob Dole and John McCain were all extremely successful centrist candidates, right? Of course not! In fact the only recent historical examples of where this has been successful has been Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. This works for the Democrats because when they moderate, they are moving to the right and not the left. We are a center-right country with an emphasis on the right. Americans believe in smaller government and personal liberty and liberals can get elected when they disguise their liberalism as conservatism, especially when running against moderate and weak Republicans.

What the Republican establishment fails to recognize is that all of the so-called independents that are needed to win elections are not all in the center. They are just people who are so disgusted with both parties (and rightfully so) that they won't claim either one. Many of these independents would never vote for a Democrat, but they also won't bother getting out to vote for a Republican just because he is the lesser of two evils. They want someone who excites and inspires them in "bold colors". That's why Reagan won the sweeping landslides like he did.

So the next time you hear that you have to vote for Romney because he's the most electable, ask yourself what that really means. Then examine the candidates on the issues and vote for the one who best represents your values and makes the case for conservatism. Don't just vote for the so-called electable candidate.