Is the GOP on a Death Watch?

One might think so given the reaction to the Republican National Committee’s recent release of a study of 2012 election results entitled Growth and Opportunity Project (nickname: autopsy report). 

But the fear – or hope – is surely grossly exaggerated

Sure, the vote for president was disappointing, to say the least.  It’s natural for attention on the right to focus on what went wrong.  But let’s maintain some perspective.  Romney lost by 3 points!

Considering the deficiencies of the candidate – “47%”, self-deportation, awkward demeanor, etc., it is a wonder that the Republican standard bearer did as well as he did.

Losing campaigns often target the messenger, not the message, as being responsible for the outcome.  And usually, the focus is misplaced.  The voters probably did reject the message, but not always, and not in 2012. 

Exit polls reflected a basically conservative electorate.  Last fall, a Pew Research survey showed that the public favored a smaller government over increased services by 51% - 40%.  So “autopsy” seems somewhat hysterical and over-wrought.  Yes, it would appear that liberals “out-teched” the GOP and were surprisingly successful in replicating the ’08 coalition of women, minorities and young voters.  But Republicans who are now aware of the deficiencies aren’t likely to fall short on technology next time.  Nor is it conceivable that fortune (Hurricane Sandy and Gov. Chris Christie) will smile so warmly on the Democrats in 2016.

Having a better candidate will not assure victory for the GOP but that, with other factors, touched upon above should make it much more likely.

What Sounds “Too Good” to be Good Usually Isn’t

Liberals love to promote pleasing policies regardless of the consequences, intended or otherwise.  Political favor may not be the sole motivation but it would certainly be naïve to believe it is not a consideration.

Some examples:

          *Raise the minimum wage

          *Extend Federal unemployment benefits

          *Expand the availability of free medical care

Minimum Wage:  Who doesn’t want to make more money?  The current Federal wage minimum is $7.25.  Democrats propose a hike to $9.00.  But why so parsimonious?  If wages can be raised by fiat, why not twenty or thirty dollars an hour?  Heck, let’s ensure that the annual minimum salary for everyone is no less than one hundred thousand dollars!

Well, maybe that’s too much to pay a shopping mall security guard, for instance.  Surely the shopping mall will do without the guards for that price.  It will buy more security cameras, most likely.  Ah, consequences.  Well, it sure sounded like a good idea.  Who would have thought it would have cost jobs.  [Thinking about the reaction to the feel good policy ahead of time would have helped.]

Unemployment benefits:  If a previously-employed worker doesn’t have a job and benefits are about to run out, why shouldn’t the entitlement period be extended?  Well, it makes superficial sense but fails to take human nature into account.  If a person is paid for doing nothing, wouldn’t that tempt some to prefer that status to being paid to work?    

Statistics make clear that unemployed insurance beneficiaries are more likely to find a job the closer they are to the benefit cut-off date.  That’s hardly a coincidence. 

 Medicaid Growth:  Shouldn’t medical care be available to everyone?  So if a person can’t afford medical care, he should get it for free, right?  But if anything is without cost, won’t people take or use more of it?  So government spending on the poor has exploded.  Who would have expected the result?  [Anyone who understood human nature.] 

Alas, conservatives consequently are at a distinct political disadvantage when confronting the Left on such feel good issues.  Liberals inflate the balloon of wishes.  Who likes the person with the pin?

         

Is a Parent of a Homosexual Supposed to Support Gay Marriage?

Last week, Ohio Senator Rob Portman was in the headlines for announcing that he had changed his decades-long opposition to same-sex marriage.  He did so because his young adult son had informed him that he was  homosexual.

“I have come to believe that if two people are prepared to make a lifetime commitment, to love and care for each other in good times and in bad, the government shouldn’t deny them the opportunity to get married.”

For any parent to learn of a child’s sexually-gay orientation must be very upsetting, independently of the parent’s policy views.  There is no doubt that a life confronted by prejudice from large segments of society awaits, notwithstanding the lessening of public hostility which polls suggest is now occurring. 

But why should one’s views of the appropriate uniqueness of traditional marriage be changed by the fact that a parent loves a son who wants to marry a man?  Of course, a loving father wants happiness for his offspring.  But is the pursuit of individual happiness the only factor to be considered? 

Senator Portman, by all accounts, is a respected, thoughtful public official who was previously an active and outspoken supporter of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.  Presumably, that was a well-considered position, not fraught with emotion or hostility to happiness for homosexuals.  I do not know whether the GOP lawmaker’s original views were based on religious beliefs, the fact that traditional marriage has long served as a bedrock of society or some other reasons.  But since Portman has not expressed an explanation for his new support for gay marriage, other than he has a family member who does, strongly suggests that his heart won out over his head. 

Certainly, he is not to be condemned for that very human decision.  But neither should it be given weight as a thoughtful challenge to the historical definition of marriage. 

If one believes that stealing is wrong, the fact that his child is a thief should not justify a call to banish the proscription.

Inside the Mind of the Liberal Media

It is a given that the general news media is biased towards the left.  What other explanation can there be for the consistently favorable coverage received by candidates of liberal persuasion (President Obama on down) along with their policies (increased taxation on the top 2% and Obamacare, for instance)?

But why is this so?  Journalists are the products, mostly, of journalism schools with the faculty tilting leftward like academia in general.  But I suggest that the typical student entering a journalism curriculum is already imbued with liberal inclinations.  Certainly the motivation is not financial.  Except for the few who do national TV news or are prominent reporters with large newspaper organizations, a journalism career does not offer the prospect of riches. 

But, of course, the potential to influence the public – to affect (and possess) power – has an allure all its own.

So those motivated thusly are attracted to media careers.  Of course,  in a general sense, there is nothing wrong with that.  Wanting to make a contribution to society is quite commendable. 

But such motivations can be very corrupting when one is surrounded by those who share the same political perspective.  Doing right is not necessarily the same as doing what one perceives as good.  

Journalism schools, despite the prevalence of the leftward bent of its faculties and students, mostly still preach the importance of objective reporting -  fairly covering the various sides of an issue.  To do so is treated as a cardinal virtue for a journalist. 

In practice, though, that prescription for fairness is ignored if the journalist believes that a particular point of view is illegitimate.  That’s understandable and even appropriate if the subject is ethnic genocide in Rwanda, for instance (how can one support one tribe slaughtering those of another?).

However, what if the subject is one that is not so black and white to many members of the community served by the media?

Consider the issue of “gay marriage”.  It is controversial, with intelligent arguments to be found on both sides that, I suggest, a fair observer would recognize. 

But to many on the left, opposition to state-sanctioned homosexual unions is akin to racism and, hence, illegitimate.  In many newsrooms, such an attitude is a given.  So the obligation to be fair is overridden by the desire to do good.  A conscious desire to promote that which is deemed good becomes the media’s objective. 

The media’s insularity and self-righteousness can cause it considerable embarrassment, however.

A Washington Post reporter was recently quoted as saying that favorable media coverage of gay marriage was entirely justified:

“The reason media outlets routinely cover gays is because it is the civil rights issue of our time.  Journalism, at its core, is about justice and fairness and that’s the view of the world that we espouse.  Therefore journalists are going to cover the segment of society that is not being treated equally under the law.”

That’s interesting. 

Our black President recently was against same-sex marriage before he was for it. 

And a higher percentage of black voters in a Maryland referendum on gay marriage cast ballots against it than did whites.

Wouldn’t you think they’d have been especially receptive to a civil rights’ issue?

But what did they know?  The liberal media had already settled the matter.

Opinion Polls and Public Ignorance

There is something incongruous between polls gauging public opinion on matters of national policy (for instance, “should the U.S. leave Afghanistan in 2014?”) – as if politicians should be responsive to them -- and others highlighting the abysmal ignorance of respondents concerning such issues. 

For example, polls taken at the height of the cold war with the USSR revealed that over 60% of the public thought that the Soviet Union was an ally!

Or consider July, 2012, samplings of the public’s knowledge of politics;

*40% of registered voters didn’t know that Gov. Romney had worked for Bain Capital (certainly not as a result of the Obama campaign’s lack of trying). 

*Less than half of Republican voters knew that John Roberts was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court – and this was a month after Roberts’ highly controversial decision upholding Obamacare was all over the media. [For whatever comfort it may provide to conservatives, only 1/3 of the Democrats knew the answer.]

*There were similar responses to the question as to which party controlled the House of Representatives:  51% of Republicans were correct, as opposed to 29% of Democrats. 

What does this all mean? 

First, it’s a good thing that America is not patterned after an ancient Greek- style democracy where all voters are assumed to be informed when making policy. 

Second, our founders were onto something when they established a republican (representative) government as opposed to a classic democracy.

Very bluntly, public opinion about matters that it knows little or nothing about is meaningless.  To treat it seriously, is to convert our political system into government by the ignorant. 

Now, of course, politicians won’t ignore the views of uninformed voters (Obama would not have won without them).  But one would like to think that the suspect quality of such opinions would be kept in perspective.

And one can hope that the tooth fairy is real, too.