Saturday, November 10, 2012
Why The Republicans Lost!
November 10, 2912
By Saeed Qureshi
The prime reason for the Republican Party’s defeat in 2012 presidential election was the negative genre of politics and issue-less strategies they took to. Their overriding aim was to oust a black president as well as to safeguard the special interest groups and the wealthiest by way of fewer taxes and more perks.
They projected themselves to be pro war, anti-immigrants, pro-privileged classes and indifferent to the middle and lower middle sections of the population. They discounted and derided 47 per cent population mostly downtrodden and poor as was revealed from a secret conversation of the Republican nominee Mitt Romney.
Mitt Romney relied mostly on generalization of his perceptions and the mandate that he wanted to put in place to bring about a change for a better America. He mostly dwelt on repeating his five points that he had crammed. But he was vague and would be short of offering minute details and the modus-operandi for their result-oriented implementation.
He projected himself to be an economic wizard capable of buoying up America from fiscal quagmire it is stuck into. But he was far from being candid with regard to reduction or enhancement of taxes and also spending cuts. While he would talk in a roundabout method of cutting the spending, yet in contrast, he was wont to increase the defense budget by 2 trillion dollars.
The Republicans lost female voters by denying them the right to abortion and contraceptives for health reasons or to not have a child because of the rape. The Republicans made it a moral issue, for being conservative or Catholics. That also cut across the individual liberty and freedom of choice by women to bear a child or not. This issue was in fact of a very serious import and on this even a chunk of the conservative women among the white population supported democrats.
Some of the unscrupulous and imprudent Republican politicians even supported rape by defining it as some kind of legitimate rape, a term that was despicably offensive and stinking.
The Republicans lost majority of Latinos, the young students, the veterans, the black segments.The overwhelming number of the Muslim immigrants voted for Obama because he was perceived by them to be much less antagonistic and biased than his Republican rival and his party.Also the Asians, the Africans, the immigrants from the Middle East and elsewhere favored the Democratic Party for its liberal, non-discriminating and rather pro immigration profile.
The extra unwanted baggage came in the garb of such media showy figures as Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove of George Bush fame, Hannity, Glenn Beck and Jack Cafferty. They were highly biased, irrational and with their passion driven predictions poured venom on Obama specifically and the Democratic party generally.
The support and publicity of these anchors and analysts for the Republican Party created negative rather than positive persuasions for the voters. Moreover the Tea Party that anchors its political philosophy on race and color also proved to be a liability rather than an asset for the Republican candidate as their stance ran counter to the spirit of America and its constitution.
In foreign policy domain, Mitt Romney projected him to be immature and less conversant with the international affairs. He was categorically against China and most of the Middle East, wanted an immediate war against Iran, send army in Syria and thus re-engage United Sates in fresh wars. He seemed to be possessing perfunctory knowledge about the world at large and the imperative of lessening global tensions and removing dangerous flash-points via appeasements than exacerbating these.
Internationally, Europe mostly was in favor of Obama’s’ re-election. Israel that the myopic observers believed was opposed to Obama’s second term was in fact supportive of him. Although Romney dashed to Israel to curry favor with Israel and Jewish lobbies within United States, yet the leadership of Israel was more sagacious that what Mitt Romney envisaged. A rational American president was more desirable for Israel than an unreasonable sycophant.
Finally the Republican stalwarts were complacent and took it for granted that they would win the elections. The volunteers and election corps of the Diplomatic Party were more committed, fired and motivated. They reached voters through emails, in person, by holding corner or indoor meetings and dropping leaflets in the houses. That missionary zeal made a lot of difference in molding public opinion in favor of president Obama.
Unfortunately the overall image of Republic Party during the last four years has been that of an obstructionist. That it legislated only as a parochial party, in favor of minority of privileged and wealthiest segments of America. That it whips conservatism not supported by the secular American constitution and Bills of Rights. That it stands more for the supremacy of the white and Caucasian races and less for the racial and ethnic equality of the Americans as a cohesive nation.
The Republican leadership has to undergo a soul searching and a rigorous process of catharsis to shed aberrations that overshadow its stature as a national party.
The writer is a senior journalist and a former diplomat.
To unsubscribe or for comments please write us at firstname.lastname@example.org.