Politics don’t always make sense, but sometimes the logic behind a campaign strategy is completely baffling. Politicians might not give members of the electorate much credit for their intelligence (the sentiment is typically mutual), but the current attempt to sell the Republican candidate is so faulty that anyone paying attention should feel insulted.
For months the Republican mantra has been that President Barack Obama cannot run on his record. The talking points look something like this:
“Unemployment is high and growth is slow. Things could be better. Things should be better. Regardless of extenuating circumstances, a leader needs to be held accountable for results.”
For blind followers of the GOP, this argument is far more than what they need to vote against the incumbent. The big “D” next to his name is already sufficient for that. And to be fair, the “R” next to Mitt Romney’s name is enough to earn the ire of many steadfast Democrats. But neither of these are the kind of fickle voters that campaigns spend time, money, and energy to court.
The independent and undecided voters for which campaigns are designed are those who tend to think for themselves rather than rely on an unquestioning loyalty to a political party. With this obvious reality in mind, it is mind-boggling that Republicans are playing the can’t-run-on-his-record card.
Such a strategy logically implies that the Republicans have something better in the way of a proven record to offer. It implies that Mitt Romney can run on his record—either as CEO of Bain Capital or as Governor of Massachusetts, or both. It implies two sides to the “x is greater than y” equation.
Now, I have been following both campaigns, and there are two phrases that are conspicuously absent from Mitt Romney’s public statements: “When I was at Bain,” and “When I was Governor.”
The Republican candidate avoids mentioning his most significant past leadership positions because of the devastating political liabilities associated with outsourcing labor, layoffs, a universal healthcare mandate, gun control measures, and job creation results that ranked 47th nationally.
The bottom line: Romney cannot run on HIS record.
Despite this, Republicans continue to throw stones from their glass house–or if this is a Romney metaphor, their Waterford crystal house.
Raunak said:
well stated :)
A Pelph said:
Much of the tail spin our country has been in is the result of the political game. The leader of our country is the winner of a game! Its sad but true. I didn’t know Hermain Cain prior to his candidacy, but I could see the scandal coming from a mile away. He was getting in the race as someone with fresh ideas and someone from outside the political world. He was eaten alive not on what he was running on, but by the game. If he did what they say he did we do not need that as a leader, but did he or were those women paid actresses? Did they continue to pursue their case after he dropped out of the race? I believe we need someone in office from outside Washington to clean house. Unfortunately it is unlikely that will ever happen because the political world would not allow it. They are very comfortable with the perks they receive and together will crush anyone from the outside who would put that at risk even if it were for the good of the country.
Regardless of political preference it is a game and extremely difficult for us to sort out the facts from either side. It is a game with very few rules. You and I could beat Tiger and Phil in a round of golf if we play by the rules you and I make up as we go along.
J. Palmer said:
AP,
Politics is definitely a dirty game.
For the record, I was all aboard the Cain train before the scandal broke (emphasis on was). I wish I knew the truth about what happened, but I imagine it was somewhere in between what Cain and his accusers said.
After being regularly disappointed by the athletes whom I cheer for (due to morally repugnant behavior), I have learned to separate my support of their on the field performance from their off the field character issues. I no longer respect athletes as people–just as talented athletes. It’s sad, but what Charles Barkley famously said in his TV ad, “I am not a role model,” is true.
Unfortunately, I have a hard time separating character issues (even unproven ones) from political ideologies; there is just too much at stake. If I could separate the two, you might see me wearing a Bill Clinton Washington Democrats jersey every election day. I guess I’ll have to stick with the Honest Abe throwback, #16.
The Real Me said:
I know of a political figure whose character matched his message. He was no senator or congressman, not even a president, but a king! Ironically, he did not look for a following like today’s leaders and did not make false promises of compassion from government. You see, government is not capable of compassion. I think the statements above accurately reflect that they are in it for themselves. Why are we under the impression that the Democrats are the compassionate ones and the Republicans are the greedy monsters? In reality, most of the Republicans (not the politicians, but conservative citizens) I know are extremely compassionate and giving people. That aside, I do not trust in any politicians, Republicans or Democrats. It seems it is true, if their lips are moving they are lying. They have no ability to help. They do have the ability to be genuine, but they choose only to play their game as earlier mentioned. Only you can truly make a difference in your neighbor’s life if he is struggling. If he needs $50 for groceries, give it to him. If you believe in giving it to the government to give to him, know that they will waste $40 of that and your neighbor will only get $10 of that money that you intended for good. Back to that king, he lived and reigned nearly 2,000 years ago. Too bad he is gone! Or is he???
All good points above! I agree, but can a politician or government solve the problem of selfishness that exists in every man’s heart?
snaujokas said:
He also can’t use his past record to form solid statements supporting certain demographic groups.
J. Palmer said:
TRM,
Thanks for the response. I agree that relying on politics to fix moral issues is futile, but in my opinion taxation is the only logical secular solution to “the problem of selfishness that exists in every man’s heart.” People certainly wouldn’t give to the government to support the least fortunate if it were voluntary. And the church is not doing its job in America to support communities–if it were, government wouldn’t have to be so big. By most measures, only 3% to 6% of Christians (who account for 78% of America’s population) are regular tithers, yet many conservatives continue to point fingers at the government for doing what the church is not.
You make the point that “most of the Republicans (not the politicians, but conservative citizens) I know are extremely compassionate and giving people.” And there is even evidence out there to support that conservatives give more to charity than liberals, but how is this not fostering the same kind of dependency that conservatives claim is so detrimental to the recipients of welfare in this country? It just doesn’t make sense.
I do understand the argument about government waste, but sometimes you have to take the bad with the good, especially when other charities are not doing enough good to begin with.
Some conservatives see the government as evil, some as a necessary evil; I see it as a necessary good–at least until churches and charities make it unnecessary.
Keep bringing the balance, TRM!
Mark Moore - commentary on the gospel, baseball, and other stuff said:
Jason:
Really good discussion here. And, if you don’t mind, I’d like to link to your site for my Politics According to the Bible class, to get them thinking beyond the cookie cutter.
I’d like to hear your opinion, or see a blog post regarding term limits. Like so many others, I’m tired of the political kingdoms that have been established for self-preservation. Public policy and the protection of inalienable rights seem to be secondary. In other words, I sense most politicians are more concerned about staying in office than correcting the problem.
So, do you think term limits would be effective and allow people like Herman Cain, et al to enter the fray?
J. Palmer said:
Mark,
Thanks for reading. You can absolutely link this site for your class. The traffic would be greatly appreciated and helpful to the cause of creating a more informed and engaged electorate.
As far as term limits go, I completely agree with your sentiment regarding the perpetual campaigning of politicians, but I don’t know if term limits are the answer or not.
Even if we imposed a limit of one term on every office, what would stop politicians from simply campaigning for higher offices all the time? And if we tried to stop that by only allowing people to hold one office in a lifetime, it would be hard to find anyone with good governing experience to take the higher offices where some say experience is valuable.
Maybe instead of imposing term limits, we should impose work requirements–as in the politicians have to spend x amount of time working on problems in their own districts, holding meetings for their constituents, even a quota for drafting legislation. Just a thought.
Mark Moore - commentary on the gospel, baseball, and other stuff said:
Jason:
You make some valid points.
I’ve not thought of the issue of politicians simply climbing the political ladder. We’d still have them involved in making policy. Yeesh!
I was thinking more along the lines of what we’ve done with the executive office – a two term limit. That would give them time to work toward establishing their legislation and seeing it through to application, I suppose. Maybe not.
I understand your thoughts on imposing work requirements. That’s an interesting concept and one that should be explored. Yet, if our congressmen and women and president can’t even get together to establish a budget, I’m not very optimistic that they would impose work requirements on themselves.
Nonetheless, interesting thoughts here. Keep it going!
The Real Me said:
JP,
There are so many informative blogs going on here that I lost my place and thought the last one I posted disappeared. Found it! Thanks for reply! There are some very well informed people a little to the left or a little to the right providing insightful information. I really appreciate bloggers like Vincent, Pelph and others who have provided a lot of insight. I am definitely to the right, but not fond of the Republican Party (I really don’t think they know where they are on the scale). I do like small government. Administrating anything in smaller groups will always be more efficient, however, you do make a good point about the church not functioning as it should.
Even as a Christian, I have felt that in many cases the church, in self-absorbed societies like ours, does more damage than good. That is not a knock on God or the church though. It is on arrogant people who want to control everything, including religion. So yes, there is an issue with giving and your point is well made. I think your stats are off though. I say that with a laugh because you know what I mean. Will 78% of Americans be in heaven? Sure, and 78% of McD’s is healthy. I also don’t believe many mainline protestant churches report their tithing, so the numbers will be skewed. There is a lot of good being done, but I can’t deny your point that it is far from enough. The lack of caring for our neighbors has always been a problem. We will sharpen the pencil past the eraser with all our wit trying to solve the world’s problems. We’ll toss out the pencil and do it all again. Our kids and grandkids will do it. We all talk like there was some utopian society that we need to get back to. Did I miss something? When was that? I do remember something about a garden where everything was perfect for a short while. Fairy tale or fact?
You are right, JP, politics is a crutch for a fallen world, a broken crutch (real helpful). Whether we want to classify it as a necessary good, a necessary evil, or toilet paper (probably fits better), I am going to keep helping those God puts before me to help. The government is playing Monopoly with God’s world, and we keep talking like the game is for real. To be fair, our world has problems, and we do need solutions. We need to talk, but if we don’t generously look after those in our circle, with time, money, encouragement, a phone call, and most importantly, pointing them back to their creator who loves them and has a great plan for their life, we are just making noise. Hmmm… sounds familiar…without love I am a resounding gong or clanging cymbal. Anybody want to guess where that comes from or who said it? Let them play politics. We have a much more important task!
Mark Moore - commentary on the gospel, baseball, and other stuff said:
JP and TRM:
Do you think the Church is called to respond to and care for the physical needs everyone, or is the Church commanded to address the physical needs of its members?
It’s interesting that, many times, people will exclude religion (specifically Christian beliefs) from any influence on government, yet they “flip the coin” to the other side and say churches should be more involved in meeting the physical needs of our “neighbors.”
It’s similar to the “you’re supposed to love your neighbor” theorem, but the “love God” maxim is never acknowledged as the first part of Jesus’ response to the pharisee when asked about the greatest commandment.
The mission of the Church is to meet the spiritual need of our neighbor first (with the Gospel), then meet the physical need of neighbors who are Christians, and, finally, meet the physical needs of anyone.
Thoughts?
The Real Me said:
Mark (and JP),
Church body first. Then outside community. Why is this a question though? A healthy church has no problem doing both. Scripture is also clear that loving God comes first. You are right on again, but loving our neighbor is obviously a result of loving God. It is hard in my mind to talk about all that in a religious sense though. If we love God and don’t love our neighbor, do we really love God? No way! Again, the Bible is clear there too. Our love for others is a natural result. My point to JP is that it is futile depend on government to show the compassion that we are supposed to show. JP made a great point though that the church is failing at this and that increased taxation is the necessary result. It really goes back to the selfishness problem that we are more in love with ourselves than God as a whole (unfortunately speaking of the church). The ironic thing that we SO miss the point on is that if we all tithed and the church was a powerful force in the community to meet needs, we would not have to pay nearly as much in taxes. I’m sure JP agrees. I know some liberals that genuinely have a heart for others and are ok with paying taxes to meet needs through the government. I’m glad they want to help, but this is a bad investment of their money. Too low of a percentage of that gets to the needy. From the Federal government to my neighbor, here are WAY too many hands grasping at that money. I would say that the church also tends to waste money in some cases, but because it is a local body driven more by passion than duty, it stands a much greater chance to make a lasting difference. As you mentioned, the spiritual need comes first, but actually that is the goal. It may not always come first. Look in the Gospels at how Jesus works on first dealing with heart issues in so many encounters with people and quickly connected those to the truth about his Father. Again, if we are not loving, we are a resounding gong or clanging cymbal. Jesus lived this out! Remember, it was the religious folks of his day that “talked spiritual”, but were incapable of showing love. JP, if the church loves and meets needs, both physical as well as the prime spiritual need that Mark pointed out, how is that creating dependency? It makes total sense. What are you unclear about? If a church simply gives handouts, I would agree with what you are saying. In reality, this does happen some, but there is more of “teaching man to fish than just giving him one.” With a church being local, and having wisdom (unlike Washington), they can easily detect an abuser of the system and cut him off quick.
J. Palmer said:
@TRM from 8/16:
“The government is playing Monopoly with God’s world, and we keep talking like the game is for real.”
I love that analogy. It is so true.
I know we are talking like the game is for real, but I would never put politics ahead of spiritual matters. The political arena to me is more like a playground where I get to exercise my critical thinking skills. Sometimes I fall off the swing; sometimes I get beat up by the bully; and sometimes the smart kids laugh me–but I still enjoy the exercise and occasionally putting the booger pickers in their place.
J. Palmer said:
@Mark from 8/16:
I am not well versed enough in the Bible to answer this one in a scriptural way, but I do think the idea of “the last shall be first” applies.
I think the church should be serving whomever needs it most at the moment, whether that be its own members, its community, or other communities. We do see this very often when big tragedies strike—the New Orleans flood and Alabama tornadoes come to mind.
J. Palmer said:
@TRM from 8/17:
“The ironic thing that we SO miss the point on is that if we all tithed and the church was a powerful force in the community to meet needs, we would not have to pay nearly as much in taxes.”
Agree 100%. What would you think of a dollar for dollar tax credit for charitable donations to verified organizations? That would certainly put the ball in the churches court.
Personally I think the existing track record of voluntary giving among Americans (not just Christians) show that this would not have the desired impact of reducing our taxes and government waste—but it is an idea.
The Real Me said:
Don’t think it would work. There is too much abuse. I’m more concerned about us doing the right thing than the credit. It would eventually take care of itself. I don’t think that’s where people’s hearts are though. I’ll just keep doing my part and I’ll vote for the candidate who I believe will keep me freed up to do my part.
Booger pickers! Too funny! That was all of us. Some were just more noticeable because they dug for so long.
livedrive review said:
This is the right blog for anyone who wants to find out about this topic. You realize so much its almost hard to argue with you (not that I actually would wantHaHa). You definitely put a new spin on a topic thats been written about for years. Great stuff, just great!