Many on the right thought that due to the dismal state of the economy that had shown no improvement under President Obama's leadership, and his failed policies leading to a bleak future outlook, the Republican candidate would win the 2012 election. No president had ever won reelection with such terrible economic numbers and after four years voters would no longer blame former President Bush is what they believed. While I had high hopes, and my prediction was that it was really possible for Romney to win, I knew it was a long shot and wouldn't be surprised or stunned if Obama won. And I wasn't.
After the election, much soul searching has gone on by those on the right at what went wrong and many answers have come about. I am not alone in this idea or claim it was mine, but I am still in the "It's the economy, stupid" camp. Obama won the election because for many, no matter how bad the economy was, it didn't matter. Those voters personal economies were just fine. It was folks who get their income from the government, whether a job or the dole, they were secure financially, or low income people who have their incomes supplemented by things from the government like food stamps, or college students who also receive their loans and grants from government. The economy these people live in came not from the private sector, but the public one. This allowed them to become single issue voters, and their issue was more government. This meant Obama was their candidate.
Of course, there were also others who made up the Democrat coalition, but again, they mainly were single issue voters who had no stake in, or worry of, the private sector economy. So, the question arises as how to define this group of voters as a single factor that in the face of the miserable economy reelected the president. An expression was needed that political scientists could plug into their equations to account for this new factor that will obviously be a force in future elections. I myself have struggled with this because while it seems to be an unknown there has to a number, a quantity that can be used to fill the hole in the economic equation that said Mr. Obama should today be retired and again living in Chicago.
While doing some research on another subject I ran across the answer. I was searching for a particular quote from the early 20th century satirist and libertarian pioneer H.L. Mencken which I couldn't remember well enough to quote from memory. As I read through many of his quotes it struck me that I found the elusive factor to account for Mr. Obama's reelection;
"As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." H.L. Mencken, The Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
The answer is the American Moron, who I would argue generally votes Democrat. This is because the moron cannot deeply think through issues and most liberal ideas are shallow and not based on reason or logical thought so the two align nicely. This can be described scientifically by how many liberal ideas fit on a bumper sticker due to their simplicity and morons put bumper stickers on their cars due to their simplicity.
This simplicity of the moron can explain many aspects of liberalism. The moron rants and raves mindlessly, has trouble containing his emotions, often cannot express him or herself coherently or control the volume of their voice, and cannot make logical points in a debate, all also happen to be attributes of the contemporary progressive person. The linchpin of this connection is that neither the moron or the liberal feels any responsibility for their actions, and both believe someone else must bear that responsibility.
For calculations I think the moron should be expressed by M. National elections are really state by state elections and states considered blue would have more M than states considered red. Some polling would have to be done to get accurate state numbers and one would have to calculate the liberal-moron overlap. In other words, separate those who are just regular morons who only vote when some union activist drags them to the polls with promises of cigarettes, booze or cash, from the more politically active liberals who need no such motivation to find their way to several polling places and vote multiple times.
If one looks at the 2012 election results on a national level and say that at a minimum 20% of President Obama's voters were regular morons (M) it goes a long way to explaining his victory despite the miserable state of the economy which after four years of his actions he has full ownership of. Given just how bad of a president he has been these findings are preliminary, the number of morons could be and probably are significantly higher. Much more work on this subject will need to be done, but this is a crucial breakthrough that political scientists must account for in future electoral models. Obviously, these findings cause serious problems for conservative and libertarian candidates going forward. The era of personal responsibility seems to be fading into history.
I am sure someone will ask what was the Mencken quote that I was looking for that led me to this stunning discovery? "A cynic is a man who, when he smells flowers, looks around for a coffin."
I did say I was researching a different subject.
SCROLL UP TO TOP OF PAGE
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.