Lessons for GOP from 2012

What happened November 6th, 2012? With record levels of unemployment, with more people on food stamps since the Great Depression, with our nations' declining influence in the Middle East and throughout the world, with financial crises unchecked, with gridlock still locked in, President Barack Obama was reelected, and the Democrats held on, even made gains in the Senate. This outcome has shaken up hopeful conservatives and constitutionalists, both who witnessed an opportune playing field in which the Democrats had to defend more seats than the Republicans. The Republicans kept the House of Representatives, a stalwart group of Establishment pragmatists and Tea Party partisans who will resist anything less than spending cuts, deficit reductions, and comprehensive entitlement reform.

“The morning after” is now long gone. Romney supporters have wept and hugged each other, basking in the certainty that a 2014 repudiation is already in the works. The six-ear itch works over incumbent Presidents every time, unless another unprecedented, record-breaking element will burst forth on the national political landscape. The President won reelection, likely because of voter frustration over the Bush years which changed very little under the Obama Administration, followed by a Romney run which evinced very little hope for people who were waiting for change that would bring a much-needed course correction for this country. One report suggested that a declining "white" vote contributed to the Obama reelection. Not that their numbers have dwindled because of a growing Hispanic and African-American population, but because working and middle class voters were disgusted with their two choices for President. While Obama wants to keep on spending, candidate Romney sequestered the need for a military "sequester", and his "47%" remark was 100% off the mark. Entitlement reform does not mean excoriating those who have paid into the system, often against their will, who understandably expect to get a return for what they put in.

---

Yet for all the crying and complaining about what happened this election cycle, the most aggressively disturbing trend was the massive repudiation of the Republican onslaught to take back the Senate. Massachusetts wunderkind Scott Brown, one of the most bipartisan members of the Senate, lost his bid for a full term. Republican moderate (or liberal) Olympia Snowe decided against another term of immoderate gridlock, with Independent Angus King winning against the Republican and the Democrat in state which has honored gay marriage and honors one of the largest percentages of "decline-to-state" voters in the country. Indiana's Republicans sent Richard Lugar packing, indicting his support for liberal Supreme Court nominees, raising the debt ceiling, and winning the dubious title of "Obama's Senator". His upstart replacement, Secretary of the Treasury Richard Mourdock, pledged no compromise without ending the spending spree. His hardline pledges alienated the Hoosier's pragmatic conservatism, but in the final weeks, his poorly phrased remark that pregnancies which result from rape may be "God's will" pushed concern into craven outrage to push the Democrat into election. Then there was Todd Akin, the Missouri Congressman whose platform against federal overreach and over-spending would set off anyone who depends on a federal subsidy. Yes, he called student loans "a cancer", but inflation unending will do exactly that to anyone's bank account. He questioned the constitutionality of Medicare and criticized Social Security, which has turned into a legal Ponzi scheme as the government spends money which belongs in that fund. However, there was no coming back when he claimed that a "legitimate rape" would never result in pregnancy. Frankly, Akin misspoke, he retracted, and he returned to the campaign, but the voters never turned out for him after that remark. Two remarks, two potential GOP pick-ups turned away, and not one pundit has called into question the cause of the consequences of these rapid repudiations. Such a volatile turn-around is welcome, even expected in the House of Representatives; but for an entire state to throw away a candidate over one sentence and elect a Senator whose values do not value the views of the voters, this result requires real remonstrance. The Framers of the Constitution intended that Senators would represent the states, not the people. For that reason, the legislatures would choose the Senators, as they would more likely support legislators who respect the compact of states and maintain federalism in the face of a growing central government. I often wondered why the election by legislature for Senators (and the election of Presidents by electors) was so important to limited government and constitutional rule. With the explosion of moment-media -- Twitter, FaceBook, Internet, 24-7 Television -- response and outrage shapes popular sentiment without any sensibility. The representation of an entire state should not be determined by one word, one phrase, or one bad politician in the White House or elsewhere in the country, especially for six years. The Framers certainly did not think so, and for that reason they instituted indirect representation for these offices. Legislatures would ignore such empty media flaps and push for the best interests of the state. The popular vote has a tendency to flip and switch depending on natural disasters, unnatural circumstances, or unforeseen statements and uncertainties. With the passage of the progressive Seventeenth Amendment, direct election has defined a volatile representation in the Senate, one which has flipped with more flaps. It's time to admit that direct election has been a flop and repeal the Seventeenth Amendment. Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock were capable men who uttered incommensurate statements. Our federal government's representation should not be compromised because of one corrupt communication.