Wednesday, April 16, 2008

McCain must stay in touch with the people

Newt Gingrich, in his new book "Real Change" writes about how all Americans want change to take place in the United States, but they are aware that change will never come from Washington, it will come from the people.

He writes that, "The media tell us America is a nation divided between conservatives red states and liberal blue states. They tell us that red and blue are equally divided -- which is why elections are so close, why Congress seems gridlocked, and why nothing ever seems to get done in Washington."

"But that's simply not true. The reality is the American people are united on almost every imiportant issue facing our country."

He writes that the left believes they hold the moral superiority, and too many people on the right lack the "backbone and conviction" to overcome and challenge these myths.

He writes, "If you want to know why the American people are frustrated, it is because we Americans are experiencing government that is not responsive to the needs of the nation. We understand what we face and what needs to be done--we just can't convince anyone in Washington to listen. And Americans are getting fed up."

Gingrich is correct in that most Americans are united on what they see in America and what they want to see done in the future. You can check this link here to see four yourself what the majority of Americans think.

People in this country do not like liberalism, and history has shown this agian and again. In 1972, the liberal McGovern lost in a landslide to the more conservative Nixon, and in 1984 the liberal Walter Mondale lost in a landslide to Ronald Reagan.

Considering John Kerry was to the left of both McGovern and Mondale, Bush should have won in a landslide in 2004:

Considering these polling results from a paper I wrote in July 2004 about the Bush-Kerry matchup: 87 percent of Americans told pollsters they believed in a work requirement for welfare; 72 percent said they believed in government support of faith-bsed initiatives to help the poor; 73 percent said they believed that American inerests were more important than international organizations; 84 percent said they believed that a person who attacks a pregnant woman and kills her unborn baby should be prosecuted for killing the baby; 78 percent said they believed children should be allowed ot pray in school.

He concludes that on these big questions, "On these big questions, an average of 79 percent of the people were on President George W. Bush's side and an average of only 16 percent were on John Kerry's side. Senator Karry was rated by National Journal as the most liberal senator in 2003. His vice presidential nominee John Edwards came in fourth. The Kerry-Edwards ticket was the most left-wing since George McGovern's 1972 campaign"

He concludes that the point to all this is that George Bush should have won in a landslie in 2004, but instead won by a marginal amount, and ended up with no political capital in which to accomplish anything. And that has resulted in a very ineffective run as president, and a steady decline in his popularity.

George Bush did not run a "positive, values-orientated, big-choice campaign," but instead catered to the base, and made an effort to instil anger at his opponent by negativity, and forgot about the rest of the country. The country of people who agreed with him on 79% of the issues.

Instead of catering to all of America, Bush ran a campaign based on the polls, where if the polls showed that a certain group of people were more likely to vote for him, then he focused all his energy and resourse's on that group, and ignored the rest. This, in turn, created much envy and hate and anger.

Of course this strategy worked in 2004, but created a state of vexation among the rest of the nation. It expanded the divide between blue America and red America. And that is why the republicans ended up losing both houses in 1996.

To explain this, he writes, "The base mobilization strategy requires a scorched earth negativity that gradually turns people off because it simply exhausts them. Most voters cannot sustain being angry very long."

On the other hand, the 2004 campaign was a tragedy for the democrats as well, "because it allowed them to ignore how out of touch with America the left wing of their party was."

And if one of the left leaning democrats gets elected in 2008, the American people will get what they do not want: more taxes, more government, more regulations, more litigation.

When the republicans have done their best in the past, they have not tried to cater to one group of Americans, but to a United America as a whole. When Ronald Reagan ran in 1984 against the liberal Walter Mondale, he talked about an America that could overcome any obstacle. He talked about how if he lowered taxes and decreased governmental regulations, that the American people would have no obstacles in the way, and would have every opportunity to succeed."

Instead of being negative, instead trying to get people to hate his opponent, he focused on opportunity, positiveness, strengthening America through the military, cutting taxes on all Americans to create a better economy and more opportunities for all of America, rather than just one group of Americans.

The same thing occurred in 1994 when Newt Gingrich created his Contract with America and focused not on instilling anger among republicans and getting them to hate Clinton, but by doing just the opposite. The republicans won the house for the first time in 40 years in 1994 because of the positive message, and instilling the idea that we are one America, and together we can solve these ten problems.

As you can see by checking out my post from yesterday, the American people "speak with one voice... on issues across the board, from permitting a moment of silence for prayer in our public schools to the issue of war and peace."

And by calling to the people and sticking to the issues that they believe in, issues that have been historically represented by republicans and ignored by liberals, the republican party should have no problem winning in a landslide against the liberal democratic nominee, whether it be Hilary Clinton or Barrack Obama.

John McCain, if he can continue run an honorable campaign based on the issues that are the forefront of the American people, the issues that matter most to you and me, he will become the next president of the United States.

I know that historically if one party is in office long enough, the natural trend of the American people is to switch and vote for the other party. I know that historically if the president is unpopular the people naturally vote for the other party. However, despite these trends, McCain is still neck and neck with both Hillary and Obama, and in some polls he's ahead.

The fact that this race is so competitive despite historical trends that should give the democrats a landslide victory in 2008, gives us a good idea that both Hilary and Obama, and the entire democratic party, is still way out of touch with the majority of Americans.

Change can only come from the American people, and that is the message that John McCain should stick with in the remainder of his campaign for president. As opposed to catering to the right, or left, or even the middle, he must cater to one America.


Khaki Elephant said...

I always thought Newt got a bad rap from the press, but his role in the "contract with America" paved the way for the economic growth we've experienced. Looks like I have another book to add to my reading list.

Nikki said...

Great post...Bush does have the problem of looking like a strategist instead of a communicator. I think people are looking to Reagan because of his ability to communicate with americans. Perhaps that is the initial attraction to Obama is his communication skills. Reagan of course had leadership skills to match and correct ideals. :)N