Every time the establishment media pumps the idea that the beginning of a Hillary Clinton campaign for President is just around the corner we receive an avalanche of frantic e-mails asking “How are we going to beat Hillary?”
The question limited government constitutional conservatives and other liberty loving voters should be asking is not “How are we going to beat Hillary?”
It is “How are we going to nominate a candidate who shares our values to oppose her?”
Because let’s face it, if Republicans nominate another Mitt Romney type establishment Republican, like Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan or Chris Christie, they are going to lose just like Romney lost.
And how did Romney lose, just in case anyone needs reminding?
Mitt Romney lost because he ran a content-free campaign and, while he occasionally talked a good game to small groups of conservatives, he did not campaign as a conservative – especially on the social issues.
It says a lot about the caliber of campaign Mitt Romney and the Republican establishment ran in 2012 that in the midst of the worst economy since the Great Depression of the 1930s, with unemployment at 7.9 percent in October of 2012, and 12.3 million people unemployed (40.6 percent of whom were unemployed for more than six months), Romney ended-up losing the presidential campaign by almost five million votes.
Although Democrats went after liberal social issues hard in 2012 (and 2013) the Democrats who won the Presidency from 1968 to 2010, including even Barack Obama in 2008, did not play up social liberalism in their campaigns.
Conservative author and Reagan administration official, Jeffery Bell insightfully wrote: “Social issues were nonexistent in the period 1932 to 1964… The Republican Party won two presidential elections out of nine, and they had the Congress for all of four years in that entire period . . . . When social issues came into the mix—I would date it from the 1968 election [to the 2008 election] . . . the Republican Party won seven out of eleven presidential elections.”
In 1992, Bill Clinton was a death-penalty advocate who promised to “end welfare as we know it” and make abortion “safe, legal and rare.” Social issues have come to the fore on the GOP side in two of the past six presidential elections—in 1988 (prison furloughs, the Pledge of Allegiance, the ACLU) and 2004 (same-sex marriage). “Those are the only two elections since Reagan where the Republican Party has won a popular majority,” Bell noted in an incisive interview he gave to The Wall Street Journal a few years ago. “It isn’t coincidental.”
Republicans never win the presidency unless they draw a bright line, and a clear contrast, between the conservative worldview and the Democrat’s secular liberal worldview.
When Republicans nominated a candidate who campaigned on the conservative principles that hold together the conservative coalition, they won three landslide presidential elections: 1980, 1984, and 1988.
Later, when they set those principles aside as they did in 1992, 1996, 2008, and 2012—they lost—big time.
Establishment Republicans and their apologists in the media will try to blame external factors for these election defeats, but the common thread that ran through all of those lost elections was that Republicans failed to define themselves as the Party of less government.
Cut through all the insider commentary and what really distinguishes the Republican establishment from conservatives is that establishment Republicans like Big Government and the spending, taxes and regulations that go with it.
As Harry Truman said, why vote for a Dime Store Democrat when you can have the real thing? If the choice is between Big Government Republicans and Big Government Democrats, the Republicans almost always lose.
How are we going to beat Hillary?
History tells us there’s only one way: Nominate a Republican candidate who will campaign and govern as a limited government constitutional conservative.