I know there’s a big push right now to figure out what this election means.
Is it a repudiation of Bill Kristol-esque American Greatness Conservatism? If so, how to explain the simultaneous idea of McCain as the last big man standing?
There are lots of grand themes we could discuss here and theorize about why the GOP lost and what it should do to regain its standing, but I think the real answer is fairly simple:
The President is incapable of promoting and defending his policies. I’m not one of those guys who thinks the president is dumb. I agree with Bill Whittle that you can’t fly a fighter jet and be dumb. However, he is one of the worst public speakers I have ever seen and he is terrible, TERRIBLE at thinking on his feet.
I had these concerns about him back in 2000 when I watched debates with Bush, McCain, and yes, Alan Keyes, in which Bush was an obvious and distant third at speaking his mind. During his presidency, I have been utterly unable to watch his speeches and debates. They are case studies in ineptitude, particularly for a generation schooled in Reagan and Clinton as effective communicators.
George W. Bush would never have been elected president if his father had not been president. I’m amazed his father was able to accomplish it, but he would never have done it without the aura of Reagan surrounding him. We have got to choose someone next time who is a great communicator and who could win the office even if they came from nothing as Reagan and Clinton did. Those two men gained the office with nothing but talent and potent work ethics to sustain them.
What lost on Nov. 7 was inarticulate conservatism and really no other kind.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://spectatorworld.com/.