Where to, Conservatism?
August 23rd 2008 15:21
The idea of Mitt Romney being named John McCain’s running mate has me thinking about the perilous state of conservatism in American politics and, more broadly, the damage that George Bush has done to conservatism over the last eight embarrassingly achievement-free years.
Romney would be a ridiculous choice for every conceivable reason, and the only benefit for McCain would be Romney’s willingness to throw around bags of his own money. In any other year, would Romney – with the way he ran his presidential campaign – be considered, even fleetingly, as a potential Veep? If McCain’s objective is to appeal to social conservatives, they why choose someone they rejected in the primaries?
More generally speaking, why choose someone so instantly dislikeable? Romney takes ‘smug’ to new and unforeseen levels, and his desperation for national importance is shameless.
How has it comes to this? Moderates, having been pushed aside since 1994, lost their voice. The fringe of the GOP became that guy at the party who insists on controlling the stereo, then thinks it’s fun to play ‘Bailamos’ 12 times in a row. Yes, you oppose gay marriage and abortion and Democrats, and you think that [insert name here] is the “most liberal [position] in the [legislative body]”. We know. What else?
Hopefully, as the GOP tries to redefine its identity, reactionary opportunists like Romney will lose whatever influence they still have. The Party might then be able to stand for something, instead of being opposed to [liberals! San Francisco! KENNEDYS!!!].
Romney would be a ridiculous choice for every conceivable reason, and the only benefit for McCain would be Romney’s willingness to throw around bags of his own money. In any other year, would Romney – with the way he ran his presidential campaign – be considered, even fleetingly, as a potential Veep? If McCain’s objective is to appeal to social conservatives, they why choose someone they rejected in the primaries?
More generally speaking, why choose someone so instantly dislikeable? Romney takes ‘smug’ to new and unforeseen levels, and his desperation for national importance is shameless.
How has it comes to this? Moderates, having been pushed aside since 1994, lost their voice. The fringe of the GOP became that guy at the party who insists on controlling the stereo, then thinks it’s fun to play ‘Bailamos’ 12 times in a row. Yes, you oppose gay marriage and abortion and Democrats, and you think that [insert name here] is the “most liberal [position] in the [legislative body]”. We know. What else?
Hopefully, as the GOP tries to redefine its identity, reactionary opportunists like Romney will lose whatever influence they still have. The Party might then be able to stand for something, instead of being opposed to [liberals! San Francisco! KENNEDYS!!!].
| 32 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
