The Real Reason Romney Lost
Middle America News, Nov. 7, 2012
The real reason Mitt Romney lost the election is the multiculturalist political environment that prevents conservative forces from mobilizing their natural constituency.
Here’s what happened: Team Obama ran a campaign based on “us vs. them,” while Romney ran a campaign based on ideas. In that kind of contest, ideas always lose. Obama demonized opponent Romney as a threat, as an enemy, and cultivated and encouraged the racial, ethnic, and gender solidarity of his supporters. That’s what he meant when he said, “voting is the best revenge.” Revenge against whom? Rich white guys. And those are the people he means when he says he intends to make the wealthy pay their “fair share” by increasing taxes. His black and Hispanic constituencies know their own taxes won’t go up. Obama’s entire campaign was based on the unspoken question, “whose side are you on?”
This solidarity, or “we feeling” is the most powerful of human motivations. It is so powerful that in times of war, an individual is willing to surrender his life for his group. That group may be a family, a tribe, or a political unit such as a country. The only possible way to defeat a group with a “we feeling” is with a stronger, opposing “we feeling.”
But Romney’s campaign was based on intellectual arguments. He and his supporters actually ran television advertisements featuring charts and graphs. While Obama talked people, Romney talked numbers. Team Romney did not explain why Obama’s ideas were bad, only that they were inexplicably wrong. Obama was depicted not as a threat or an enemy, but as merely mistaken. In fact, Team Romney made no effort whatsoever to characterize Obama in any way at all. Romney asserted no group solidarity to oppose Obama, and created no image of the opponent for voters to dislike. Romney did not ask, “whose side are you on?” but, “whose ideas do like better?”
Obama won more than 70 percent of the Hispanic vote, and more than 90 percent of the black vote. That’s because individual blacks and Hispanics identified their self interests with their group interests. What is good for the group was seen as good for themselves individually. Relying on gender chauvinism, Obama was also able to garner significant support from single white women. They were not won over by ideas or rational argument, but by an irrational fear of a “war on women.”
Romney won only 57 to 59 percent of the white vote, compared to the higher percentages of non-whites for Obama. Because whites are roughly 72 to 73 percent of the entire electorate, only a slight increase in the white vote for Romney would give him enough to win a majority of votes.
But multiculturalist America doesn’t allow white unity or appeals to it. In America today, blacks and Hispanics (and other non-whites) are encouraged by the multiculturalist mileu to cultivate, celebrate, and enhance their racial solidarity culturally and politically. There is an NAACP and Black Entertainment Television for blacks, a National Council of La Raza, Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and Univision for Hispanics, but no corresponding apparatus for whites, and none are permitted. As newspaper columnist William Raspberry bluntly put it, “It’s always illegitimate for white men to organize as white men.”
Because whites are not allowed to organize on their own behalf, conservative pundits and politicians now openly suggest that Republicans can win future presidential contests only through increased appeals to blacks and Hispanics. Unfortunately, blacks and Hispanics respond en bloc only to appeals for expropriation of white wealth or defeat of white power. Completing the multiculturalist triumph against whites, some commentators have even suggested that non-whites must appear on future Republican presidential tickets.
Racial politics may be lamentable, but in a multiracial society they are inevitable.
As non-white voting strength increases in the next four years through naturalization of millions more Hispanic immigrants, whites face the historically important choice of political oblivion or racial solidarity.