The Californiazation of National Politics

Torre del Paine, Chili - photo by JoAnn Sturman

by Scott Sturman

In 2010 nearly all of America rejected the statist agenda and sent the Democrats packing.  The only notable exception was California, where Democrats in droves were sent to Washington and Sacramento.  Despite enormous deficits, out of control public sector spending, prisons bursting from the seams, and SAT scores falling to the basement, the voters redefined the term “career politician” and the word impunity.  Complicit in the fiasco were most of the newspapers and television news departments from the Mexican to the Oregon border which have lost any semblance of objective reporting.  Consistency reigned in 2012 when an even more beleaguered state tacitly enshrined the Democratic Party as its only viable political party. 

Most Americans identify the economy as the country’s most pressing issue, and a majority felt Romney the superior choice to put it in order.  In the foreign policy arena he was given the nod to better deal with international affairs.  America’s schizophrenic urban electorate discarded these logical connections and voted as most Californians do:  With myopic self interest, they simply ignored the facts and voted with their heart, confident it is always best to stick with a loser in times of trouble, as long as he or she is our loser.

Some disquieting trends are extending across the country, as more Americans are voting the California way:

Although Romney captured 48% of the popular vote, he received 2 million less votes than the workaday John McCain in 2008. 
Despite Romney's pragmatic and generally moderate agenda all the red states supported him in spades.  What about the Northeast, the Rust Belt, and the Swing States where a Republican like Romney should have some appeal?  Nothing, absolutely nothing!  He is a Michigan native and a successful former governor of Massachusetts where he now resides, but he just as well could have been from Mars.

Women supported Obama by an overwhelming 18 point margin.
With more women voters than men and their trend of supporting the Left widening since 1980, conservatives must address this issue.  Whether this entails reexamining the platform on social issues or nominating competent, electable women who can withstand the withering assault from the media, the status quo is unacceptable.

By some estimates 25% of the country has no religious affiliation.
Many conservatives in this cohort are less interested in social issues and are driven by economic, defense, national security, and educational concerns.  Their importance to the conservative agenda in terms of intellectual contributions, financial support, and the ballot box cannot be underestimated.

Charisma and passion matter.
Despite the gravity of this election, 10 million less people voted in 2012 than 2008. Charismatic leadership inspires the voting public.  Not the fire and brimstone club whose members include those two idiots who ran for the Senate in Missouri and Indiana, but a Reaganesque figure with whom a broad segment of the population can identify.  A candidate must be able to convince an unemployed recent college graduate that a job is a more pressing issue than global warming or the independent voter than nothing undermines the financial health of a nation more quickly than rampant inflation and unemployment.

The Obama victory was not a mandate; he received 8 million less votes than in 2008.  The conservative message remains popular at the state level with thirty of fifty U.S. governorships held by Republicans, many in Blue States.  The advantage extends to the House of Representatives where again the Republicans enjoy a substantial majority.  If the national political trend is to be reversed, it is time to play a smarter game and pay attention to the demographics. 

The message should be clear: win the Swing States and win the Presidency.  Otherwise conservatives will have the dubious pleasure of hearing yet again another eloquent concession speech.