It used to be that
the losers in a political campaign would at least make the effort, however
false, to congratulate the winners and state how they, the losers, would now work to make government work. Those days
are gone, at least as far as Conservatives are concerned. Consider these
words from George Will, one of the self-proclaimed intellectuals of the
Conservative cause.
Obama is only the second
president (Andrew Jackson was the first) to win a second term with a reduced
percentage of the popular vote, and the third (after Madison and Woodrow
Wilson) to win a second term with a smaller percentage of the electoral vote. A
diminished figure after conducting the most relentlessly negative campaign ever
run by an incumbent, he has the meager mandate of not being Bain Capital.
Of course, as
far as negative campaigning is concerned Mr. Will must have one of those magic
television sets that only broadcast Mr. Obama’s commercials, and none of the
ones supporting Mr. Romney.
And there is the complete lack of understanding about
Mitt Romney and his economic expertise.
Americans are earning less
and worth less than they were four years ago; average household income is down
$3,800; under the 11 presidents from Harry Truman through George W. Bush,
unemployment was 8 percent or more for a total of 39 months but was above that
for 43 Obama months. Yet voters preferred the president who presided over this
to a Republican who, more than any candidate since the Great
Depression, made his economic expertise his presidential credential.
See George, the failure of Mr. Romney was that he did
make his economic expertise his presidential credential. Independent voters, those not wedded to a
party no matter what, didn’t understand the details because Mr. Romney provided
no details. They didn’t understand the
tax cuts, because no can figure out how a $200,000 tax cut for someone who pays
$1 million in taxes, and a $1,000 tax cut for someone who pays $5,000 in taxes
would make anyone better off except the millionaire.
Mr. Romney lost in part not because voters didn’t
understand and thus did not accept his economic expertise, he lost in part
because voters did understand and then did not accept his economic expertise.
No comments:
Post a Comment