Barack Obama and the triumph of identity politics
The heart and soul of the Republican party remains what it has been for generations – the middle class outside the elite quarters of the Northeast. This is why – in the 80 years between the Civil War and the Great Depression – the GOP almost always nominated a candidate originally from the Midwest: Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, William McKinley, William Howard Taft, Warren G. Harding, and Herbert Hoover. Only three nominees came from the Northeast — Teddy Roosevelt and Calvin Coolidge, who entered the presidency through the vice-presidency, and James Blaine, who lost. Even in the post-war era, the party has found success almost always from outside the Northeast. Dwight Eisenhower was from Kansas by way of Texas. Richard Nixon was a farm boy from California. Ronald Reagan went to college in Peoria, Illinois. George W. Bush’s grandfather was a senator from Connecticut, but he spoke with a folksy Texas twang.
A nominee with this kind of background would have been more able to resist Obama’s demagoguery, and we might well have a new president-elect today.
Put simply: identity matters in politics, oftentimes more than anything else. We can view political battles in budgetary terms, or in terms of cultural hot button issues, but one of the most important elements of voting is seeing yourself in the person you elect. It looks to me like Barack Obama convinced would-be GOP voters who never would have supported him to stay home rather than support this “other” fellow, Mitt Romney.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Well, that clinches it. Republicans need to run a candidate from Kenya.
The Rogue Tomato on November 8, 2012 at 8:07 PM
a certain level of prosperity allows the identity games of the left, when the pain hits watch the rainbow coalition along with the rest of us scramble.
rob verdi on November 8, 2012 at 8:11 PM
So we need an unaccomplished minority of some kind to be our candidate so the uninformed majority jackholes can have someone to latch onto.
Yeah, I’m thinking the USA is going to have a tough road back from the brink.
Bishop on November 8, 2012 at 8:11 PM
Does jay not know that mitt grew up in Michigan? What a joke. I think we should unskew this column and basically do the opposite of everything it suggests.
red_herring on November 8, 2012 at 8:13 PM
Don’t EVER let any this Democrat racial
sh!tmalarkey slide again. Speak up! Make some noise! Lose some friends over it (you don’t need that kind of “friend” anyway)!Glenn Jericho on November 8, 2012 at 8:14 PM
I’ve been making this point over and over. There are no issues with GOP policy. It’s all marketing. We lost Ohio because of Obama’s barrage of negative ads.
We need to apply that method on a national scale and start calling the liberal what they are: The Food Police, The Fitness Police, The Totalitarians, The Thought Police.
Their agenda is toxic to a free society and we must sully the Democrat brand as ruthlessly and tirelessly as the celebrities and politicians have sullied the GOP.
hisfrogness on November 8, 2012 at 8:17 PM
Excuse me, but in his victory speech Tuesday night, Obama said:
It doesn’t matter whether you’re black or white or Hispanic or Asian or Native American or young or old or rich or poor, abled, disabled, gay or straight. (Cheers, applause.) You can make it here in America if you’re willing to try.
Obama said identity doesn’t matter. So, retract what you said about identity politics. Or are we to understand Obama says stuff he doesn’t mean? Doesn’t believe? Doesn’t practice? That he’s a liar?
Paul-Cincy on November 8, 2012 at 8:19 PM
Translation: The triumph of deliberate economic, cultural, sexual, and racial division.
The problem with Republicans is they are too nice and not as nasty as the socialists, pinkos, and closet commies.
GWB was too nice, McCain was too nice, and Romney was too nice.
If you are going to go down in defeat at least do it using the same weapons, tactics, and strategies as the enemy.
farsighted on November 8, 2012 at 8:20 PM
OR…an alternative method that’s probably just fantasy.
It would be great if every single member of the Republican party switched and became a Democrat, including the politicians.
You can’t wage an identity war when we’re all the same identity. Man that would be awesome! Now you’re going to have to argue your policies on the merits of your policy not the registration of your political party.
hisfrogness on November 8, 2012 at 8:27 PM
Words. Just words.
I watch what a person DOES vs what they SAY.
Sarjex on November 8, 2012 at 8:31 PM
Exactly. But we also have to listen to Jay and understand that America has for the most part a hard time identifying with well-heeled New England patricians.
George H.W. Bush, John Forbes Kerry, and now Willard Mitt Romney.
Punchenko on November 8, 2012 at 8:34 PM
Yeah, F those math geeks taking data as data. Gut is all that matters!
It hasn’t been 48 hours and all the exact same crew who misled and lied and should be looking for jobs by all “standards” of conservative meritocracy (yes, an oxymoron right there) are back, featured on the frontpage.
I have an idea Hotair: After knowingly posting falsehoods about Nate Silver propagated by the likes of Jay Cost for weeks, how about posting Nate’s articles for once?!!
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/as-nation-and-parties-change-republicans-are-at-an-electoral-college-disadvantage/
Scratch that. Give us some more Dick JayCost Morris. The echo chamber shall not be disturbed.
lester on November 8, 2012 at 8:37 PM
Romney ran as the former Governor of Massachusetts. And Obama further obliged him with ads tying him to Bain Capital of Boston and off-shore bank accounts. Romney was effectively severed from his midwestern roots by the Obama campaign, and Romney himself did little to endear himself to the conservative heartland.
Romney was a decent, honorable man– also probably the best-qualified man actually to be a Chief Executive since Coolidge– and he ran a decent and honorable campaign. (I voted for him.) But Cost’s whole point is that Romney, and the campaign, lacked heart… whatever it is that previous GOP candidates with ties to the heartland possess and which wins elections, which was desperately needed to appeal to the white voters who didn’t show this time.
Cost’s article is worth considering.
de rigueur on November 8, 2012 at 8:38 PM
Well Jay makes a good case. Does that mean that Huckabee would’ve won? Perry? Portman? Kasich? I mean I agree with his point I just think it’s more complicated. He has to be mid-western but ALSO be a great candidate and we haven’t had any candidate that everyone wants to rally around since…..Reagan? (and he was from CA).
hisfrogness on November 8, 2012 at 8:52 PM
Yes, it was your point of view that makes him look wrong, not that he was all wrong.
lester on November 8, 2012 at 8:54 PM
People voted for Reagan because they liked Reagan. It wasn’t because of conservatism or anything else. The history revisionism on Reagan is constantly hilarious. Reagan’s electoral success is very simple.
This is true. Go for the jugular and tear them apart piece by piece. Obama didn’t hold back one bit.
Moesart on November 9, 2012 at 12:17 AM