At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

At the Intersection of Faith and Culture


The Election of 2012

posted by Jack Kerwick

As of late, many on the right have been filled with dread that the recent assassination of Osama bin Laden will increase Barack Obama’s chances of being re-elected.  On the one hand, this concern is legitimate enough, for bin Laden’s is the face of  the world’s most infamous terrorist, a monster that, in spite of having authored the deaths of nearly 3,000 of its citizens, succeeded in eluding the American government for the last decade.  Although Obama has been in office for slightly over two years, he can take credit for presiding over not just the identification of bin Laden’s whereabouts, but his killing.

On the other hand, there are considerations that militate against this concern regarding a second Obama term. 

First, while it has only been a little more than a week since we were informed of bin Laden’s death, there has already emerged a host of conflicting accounts concerning the details surrounding it.  The specific content of these statements is irrelevant; the mere fact that they are multiple and mutually incompatible alone suffices to strengthen the growing perception that this administration is the enemy extraordinaire of “the transparency” that it promised. 

Second, it is difficult for the president and his fellow partisans in politics and the media to rebut Republicans’ claim that if not for the very policies of his predecessor—the policies, that is, to which Obama and company staunchly objected and which he pledged to revoke—bin Laden would never have been found.  Fortunately, from the Republican’s perspective, the best efforts of the Democratic-friendly media have been to no avail in excising this feature of the narrative of the pursuit and killing of bin Laden from the average voter’s consciousness.           

Third, the election of 2012 is still a year-and-a-half off.  Already, the bin Laden buzz is beginning to give way to other news.  Rest assured, while the hyperbolic characterization of Obama the War President will intensify during the months and weeks leading up to November of ’12, Americans are not likely to forget the reasons that lead many of them to form Tea Parties, hold massive protest demonstrations, and flood the voting booths in record numbers to throw Democrats out of office during the last midterm.  At any rate, they will not be likely to forget such reasons as long as the Republicans continually call them to mind. 

What seems to me certain is that no one is going to either vote for or against Obama on the grounds that he presided over the military at the time that it located and assassinated bin Laden.

Of course, the Republicans have their part to play in all of this.  Not only must they be forever vigilant in reminding Americans of the Democrats’ aggressive domestic policies, they must as well insure that they nominate a remotely attractive candidate.  A truly attractive candidate must specify not only the respects in which he differs from Democrats, but as well those by way of which he parts ways with those Republicans who American voters repudiated in ’06 and ’08.

But this isn’t all.

A truly attractive candidate must not only promise to restore his party’s integrity; he must have the credibility, and be seen as having the credibility, to make such a promise. 

Sadly for the GOP, no potential establishment candidate fits this bill. 

This doesn’t necessarily mean that Republicans will lose if they run an establishment Republican, however.  A candidate who can credibly eschew the policies of both his own party as well as the party of his opponents is truly attractive because he is truthful.  An establishment Republican figure, in contrast, may be what I refer to as a remotely attractive figure, for while he may prove stylistically appealing, it is only by way of deception and trickery that he will labor to convince voters of his conservative credentials.

This insincerity will all too easily prove exploitable by one’s opponents and be exposed for the hypocrisy that it is. 

In other words, “remotely attractive” candidates begin with the burden of a substantial disadvantage from which “truly attractive” candidates are free.

My call for a “truly attractive” candidate shouldn’t be—though it surely will—be confused with the call for an “ideal candidate.”  The notion that those of us who express our disenchantment with this or that Republican are “purists” foolishly holding out for an ideal candidate is a straw man of the first order.  By definition, ideal candidates don’t exist; that’s what makes them ideal.  Like legions of conservatives, I desire, not an ideal candidate, but a good one. 

No, ultimately, the killing of bin Laden will not positively impact Obama’s prospects for re-election. And if the Republicans run a good candidate, all else being equal, it is a virtual certainty that as of November 2012, our 44th president will be heading back to the Windy City.

Jack Kerwick, Ph.D.



  • http://www.jackkerwick.com Jack Kerwick

    Thank you for reading.

    But let’s be clear: Obama is nomoderate. Anyone with eyes to see and ears and to hear would know this. Only someone who is either in denial or who is so far left as to be to Obama’s left could mistake him for a “moderate.”

    Incidentally, what isa moderate?

    Jack

  • http://www.jackkerwick.com Jack Kerwick

    George,

    First of all, let me thank you for reading.

    Second, I neither know nor could I care less what John McCain has to say on anything.

    Third, I am not suggesting that the strategies and tactice employed by the Bush administration were justified because they enabled us to find bin Laden. Truth be told, I believe that Bush was, in many ways, disastrous, and I have written on this at length. My point here was not to defend to him, but to put the lie to the fiction that Obama has somehow managed to do what Bush was incapable of doing. This is simply false.

    Jack

  • http://www.jackkerwick.com Jack Kerwick

    Thanks for reading, you grumpy old person. But is you find what I say scary, perhaps you should look within yourself to find out why you are afraid. I never intended to engage in “scare-mongering” at all.

    Jack

  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment Grumpy Old Person

    For a PHD, you sure can type contemptible scare-mongering bullshit.

  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment George Marshall

    “Second, it is difficult for the president and his fellow partisans in politics and the media to rebut Republicans’ claim that if not for the very policies of his predecessor—the policies, that is, to which Obama and company staunchly objected and which he pledged to revoke—bin Laden would never have been found.”

    Apparently you did not hear what Senator John McCain had to say on the matter.

  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment nnmns

    I fail to understand why you would oppose President Obama’s re-election. He’s a moderate; I guarantee a lot of liberals are at least as upset by him as a lot of conservatives. He’s kept us out of war with Iran. If a Republican had become president again that’s the first thing he would have done. And only possibly the most disastrous thing.

    President Obama’s economic recovery plan was hamstrung by Republicans but even then it saved tens, probably hundreds of thousands of jobs. Consider GM. Without Obama’s plan it and all those jobs would be gone. Now it’s a vibrant leader in the auto industry again.

    Obama is getting us out of Iraq. Slowly, and in fits and starts, but getting us out. And we are not ginning up phony evidence to start another war again. And your fatuitous claim about Bush’s policies being responsible for catching ObL don’t deserve comment. We’d have had bin Laden at Tora Bora if Bush hadn’t pulled the American troops out for his insane adventure into Iraq. Bush’s policies let ObL stay at large for another decade.

Previous Posts

Affirming Individuality: Reflections on "Songs for a New World"
Legions of Americans have, rightly, written off the entertainment and academic industries (yes, the latter is a colossal industry) as the culture’s two largest bastions of leftist ideology. Sometimes, however, and when we least expect it, the prevailing “Politically Correct” (PC) orthodoxy

posted 5:59:05pm Apr. 15, 2014 | read full post »

Pope Francis: A Socialist By Any Other Name
Pope Francis is once again insisting that he is not a communist, that his abiding concern for “the poor” is grounded in the Gospel of Christ, not the ideology of Marx, Engels, or any other communist. Back in 2010, while still a Cardinal, he felt the need to do the same. Why? It may very

posted 8:48:27pm Apr. 08, 2014 | read full post »

Pope Francis: As Clever a Politician as They Come
Much to the disappointment of this Catholic, Pope Francis balked on a golden opportunity to convey to the world just how fundamentally, how vehemently, the vision of the Church differs from that of President Obama when the two met a couple of weeks back. Why?  Can it be that Francis is the fello

posted 9:30:34pm Apr. 04, 2014 | read full post »

Jeb Bush: Disaster for the GOP
So, the word is that the fat cat GOP donors are eyeing up Jeb Bush as a presidential candidate for 2016. If there’s any truth to this—and, tragically, it appears that there most certainly is—then there is but one conclusion left for any remotely sober person to draw: The Republican Party

posted 10:05:38pm Apr. 01, 2014 | read full post »

"The Freedom Agenda" and Iraq
Neoconservatives—meaning every self-avowed “conservative” who also supported the Iraq War—assured us some years ago that the war in Iraq had been won following “the surge.” Of course, years prior to this they assured us that the war would be “a cakewalk.”  Eleven years later, how

posted 9:05:28pm Mar. 22, 2014 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.