Scorned Woman Loses, Gingrich Convincingly Wins In South Carolina
Newt Gingrich convincingly won in South Carolina. Unfortunately, I do not think this was primarily due to interventions like the one posted by me a few days ago, but rather to brilliant answers like the one I post above.
Which leads me nicely to my argument: whilst Santorum is – for all of us Catholics I think – by far the best candidate, I think Gingrich is the one with the best cards to defeat Obama. As always in politics, the choice is – in the end – not between our ideal candidate and the enemy, but between the enemy and the candidate who can defeat him.
I am fully conscious that this is the mentality which has brought Romney so far, and I am not ashamed in saying that if there was no better candidate to defeat Obama, my personal support – though not my sympathy – would go to him. But I do think that there is a candidate who can – easily, I think, unless he makes something very stupid – defeat Obama by presenting a radically – if not completely – different world view than the one of the inadequate git brought to the White House on a huge wave of political correctness, coupled with a toothless and flip-flopping opponent.
Santorum is, if you ask me, by far the best. Not only because of his extremely coherent Catholic stance, but because of his extremely clear ideas in matters of foreign politics. He may not have the same tea-party credentials of Gingrich, but he wouldn’t be a squanderer unable to count like the present occupier of the White House.
My problem with Santorum is that I think it is highly improbable that he may ever defeat Obama. Why? Because of his very same extremely coherent Catholic stance, and extremely clear ideas in matters of foreign politics.
I can’t imagine Santorum suddenly converting to his right-wing stance the mainstream of the American voters. I try not to confuse my own preferences with whom I think is electable. I like Santorum’s stance on Iran like few others, but it would be foolish for me to say this is a platform on which you can be elected President. Kudos to him for being so honest, but frankly I can’t see this candidate winning a presidential race. Not in 2012 at any rate.
The results in South Carolina are, I think, an important – though not definitive – confirmation of this, with Gingrich taking away the clear majority of the conservative wing and Santorum performing extremely well all things considered, but still widely behind Gingrich.
Importantly, Gingrich seems to have been the most voted among those who consider both economy or ability to defeat Obama the main motivators of their vote: this is a candidate able to unite pragmatists who would have voted Romney in the absence of better alternatives, and hard-liners who would prefer to lose with a real Republican than running the risk of winning with a fake one.
If you add the votes, Gingrich and Santorum together got around double as much as Romney’s votes. Granted, South Carolina is more conservative than the average, but I’d dare to say the anti-Romney fraction only needs to coalesce around Gingrich and Romney will become, in time, history.
What I hope will happen now is that Santorum stays in the race for as long as money and organisation allow, and then graciously retires and supports Gingrich’s candidature, suggesting his delegates vote for him at the convention. This way the way would be paved for a strong Gingrich campaign against Romney, but at the same time stressing the robust socially very conservative component behind him.
Santorum achieved a half-miracle through his own personal qualities and the fact that his ideas resonate particularly well among a certain part of the electorate. But I still can’t imagine him becoming the candidate able to defeat Romney, much less Obama. Too Catholic, too conservative, too much of a hawk in foreign politics matters, I don’t think he can make it, not in 2012.
What I do think is that scorned women do not have the grip on the electorate they used to have. Thank God for that.
Mundabor
Share this:
Posted on January 22, 2012, in Catholicism and tagged Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, South Carolina Primary, US Presidential Race 2012. Bookmark the permalink. 12 Comments.
Mundabor's Blog 
Mundabor,
Santorum did get elected to the Senate in Pennsylvania in 1994 and reelected six years later while Al Gore won the state. Gingrich never won a competitive election in a moderate to liberal state. So, I don’t agree that a Republican nominee Santorum wouldn’t be electable.
Once Santorum is past the moderate gatekeepers of Republicanism, he would be no less electable than he was while running for Senate in PA. But it will never come to that. He is unelectable in the primaries, because he is deemed unelectable in Novermber – and he is unelectable in November because he will not be on the ballot. A self-fulfilling prophecy. In effect, the Republican establishment will never let a genuine Catholic (or any genuine Christian) succeed, as both Republicans and Democrats are basically behind the anti-Catholic, anti-Christian social revolutions of the last fifty years.
Even Goldwater was “pro-choice” on murder by abortion.
I prefer Republicans like Gingrich or Romney to Obama for the same reason I prefer a natural death to violent death – it is slower and less sudden, so one can prepare. But in the end one is dead anyway. It is the same with America. This country is dying – either rapidly (Obama) or more slowly (Romney or Gingrich). It is dying both from within (moral collapse) and from without (America’s enemies winning).
Assuming Obama is defeated in 2012 by Gingrich, who proceeds to win reelection in 2016, followed by another Democrat (as it usually happens after eight years) in 2020. The first opportunity to elect somebody who really attacks the problems will then be in 2024. Pat Buchanan asks in his new book whether America will survive to 2025, or if the final collapse of its authority, solvency and its whole society will come ealier than that. Then it will be too late.
The primary in South Carolina shows in my opinion that even the Republican base in one of the most conservative southern states prefers letting America die to defending her to the last. Adding Romney and Gingrich together – where are their differences on the issues, as opposed to their style? – about seventy percent of the base of the most conservative party in a very conservative state prefer reinstating the Bush/Clinton/Bush status quo to a return to the core values and beliefs of America and Christianity. They oppose Obama’s openly anti-christian socialist experiment, but would cry loudly and, if I may say so, liberally, if someone REALLY intended to “take the country back” as the dishonest slogan often goes.
The contest between dying early or a bit later is a very important one.
On the individual level, as long as one is alive on this earth, one can turn back and repent. And continuing my analogy, Gingrich or Romney can buy Americans a little more time to do just this and get their country in order before it collapses. But what is really needed is just the coherent Christian and Catholic vision Santorum offers. Especially as I still see no reason to suppose him to be less electable than unsteady, untrustworthy, widely unpopular typical politician Gingrich. I would understand – though not share – an electability argument for Romney – the need for moderation to appeal to the broad middle and so on. But Gingrich’s hard-line conservative style will make appealing to the middle more difficult, even as his substance is really quite moderate, while Santorum is more conservative on substance but more moderate in style.
If I had to rate the candidates on the substance, I’d say: Santorum >> Paul (except foreign policy…) >> Gingrich >> Romney
And on electability: Romney >> Santorum >> Gingrich >> Paul.
The lesser of two evils is sometimes the best one can achieve in the political arena – but I see no reason to choose a greater evil in order to still have no electable candidate.
And one last argument: Every successful Reagan needs a Goldwater blazing trails and losing by landslides, thereby introducing ideas into the national arena that have been considered “too extreme” before. The so called Overton-Window needs to be expanded. There is always the same progression: First, an idea is seen as absurd and extreme; then it is seen as still extreme, but no longer absurd; then it is one of the available options; then it is the dominant option; and finally it is the consensus. If there is to be a genuine Catholic President, these steps need to be followed; topics need to be introduced into the discussions that have never been discussed openly within living memory of most voters in America. Even a decisive loss by Santorum would achieve at least this goal, just as the Goldwater campaign did, thereby galvanizing a generation of conservatives, that made possible the Reagan Revolution nearly twenty years later.
So even supposing Santorum to be less electable than Gingrich, his loss would set the stage for a real victory some years later and thereby serve an important function for the recovery of sanity in America.
Very well argued, Catocon, but to win in one’s home state does not one elctable make. Rick Perry won well in Texas and seemed to follow G.W.Bush’s pattern, but he couldn’t work in a nationalcontext.
I agree with you when you say that the republican establishment doesn’t want such a champion of Catholicism, but I think the american electorate at large thinks the same. The Democrats would pull such a terror campaign, threatening the return of the Inquisition & Co, that million of otherwise tepid non-voters would mobilise themselves to save Obma’s backside.
Goldwater is, I think, anothe rexample: he couldn;t do it because he was just too far away from the middle, exactly as walter Mondale could – even had he not had Reagan against him – never have won against any Republican candidate less than disastrous.
If you ask me, I think the manstream of the country has to steer on the right for another decade or so, and then Santorum will have a real chance. Please consider after Reagan’s two terms came Bush senior’s victory (basically the third Reagan victory, as I call it), so if Gingirch gets reelected Santorum woul dbe excellently positioned in 2020, particularly if he makes it as Gingrich’s VP, which becomes more probable as the race goes on.
I don’t see the US dying whether now or in 100 years. This is a great country with the strongest Christian faith of the Western big democracies. They’ll be able to react, and men like Santorum (inconceivable in Western Europe) are the turning of the tide. But it will take time.
M
Unfortunately, this is the part that bothers me:
” As always in politics, the choice is – in the end – not between our ideal candidate and the enemy, but between the enemy and the candidate who can defeat him.”
so how would that be changed? Shouldn’t we as Catholics be able to put our support behind someone who shares our world view and traditional Catholic faith? I understand why with our current political system this is so but it doesn’t bother me any less. Would this be the case in a parliamentary system?
“So how would that be changed?”
It can’t be changed.
It’s the way democracy works.
Catholics are very right to put their support behind Santorum. If I lived in the US and had the possibility, I would most certainly vote for him as long as he is in the race.
But I would do so in order to give strenght to the conservative wing, not because I think he can win the nomination. The decline of the “winner takes all” system in the republican primaries allows one to vote for Santorum knowing that he makes Romeny weaker, not stronger, because you know Santorums’ delegates will be on Gingrich’s side in the end, and will not support Romney.
In a parliamentary system it would depend, I would say, from the way the MPs are elected. A largely proportional system with strong parties will favour the average and the mediocrity (and the safety). A first-past-the-post system opens the way for the odd Thatcher. Proportional systems with more than three parties (Italy, Germany, Israel!) are made expressly so in order to avoid the “strong man” emerging. Whoever is at the top, is the hostage of many pressure groups. A first-past-the-post system with its two or three parties makes the emergency of a “strong man” easier, as absolute majority of one party are all but common. Which is why neither Germany, nor Italy want it.
As the German would say, “it’s ze past, you know…”
M
Just my two cents of course.
M
“I don’t see the US dying whether now or in 100 years. This is a great country with the strongest Christian faith of the Western big democracies.”
I agree – it is a great country and its Christian faith is comparatively strong. But it is near to financial collapse, it has already seen an immense and still worsening moral collapse, and because of those factors it does not have the backbone to stand its ground in a dangerous world. Maybe America will not die – but certainly America is dying. Maybe America can be rescued – but rescue is needed desparately.
Even the greatest countries die sooner or later – and America does its best to hasten this process. Of course, Western Europe is already as good as dead and America shows more signs of vitality. But it is only “relatively” alive.
Consider only this: In 1984 Mondale lost in a landslide and would have lost decisively, as you say, even against a “normal” Republican – now America has elected a president in contrast to whom Mondale looks like a second coming of Goldwater. And it might happen that he is re-elected if Santorum is his opponent – because Santorum is a Christian and the majority can easily be made to fear anything that even looks like a Christian faith. Change indeed…
By the way – we know what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah. Certainly they also had a strong faith. The pharisees had a strong faith. And, most of all, the devil also believes – and trembles.
Let me close with a quote of Mother Teresa, certainly no doomsayer: “If a mother can kill her own child, what is left of civilization to defend?”
In America she can kill her child – it is her so called right. It follows logically that America is no longer a civilized country, and certainly no Christian one.
Catocon,
I agree with you Santorum would very probably lose against Obama, as all the cafeteria Christian would be scared by him. Which is why I think Gingrich is the better bet, if most probably not the better man.
I smiled at your comparison between Mondale and Goldwater, but I’d say if Mondale had been born 30 years later he would possibly have been every bit as bad as Obama. Obama was literally born in an unChristian environment, from a father who didn’t care a straw, a mother at war with Western civilisation – and who didn’t care much more, actually – , a muslim stepfather and an extremely liberal US “environment”. The man was, basically, damaged goods the day he was born and his wife probably finished the work of destruction of whatever good instinct he might (perhaps) have had.
Still, I think you might see it a bit too bleak. The Church, the Roman Empire, the British Empire were all on the brink of destruction on several occasions, and the latter two found many times in their history the way of standing up and fight another day, discoverign themselves stronger in the end. This is exactly why some nations become superpowers and other don’t.
Yes, there is no great country who can’t destroy itself in the space of one-two generations, but the secret of great countries is that they are aware of that. Rome had Hannibal, Britain Napoleon, the US have the meth-generation of the Sixties who produced the Obamas of the world. It will pass.
Santorum winning in Iowa and third with 17% in South Carolina. Eight months ago, it looked like a fantasy.
Mundabor
Mundabor,
“I smiled at your comparison between Mondale and Goldwater, but I’d say if Mondale had been born 30 years later he would possibly have been every bit as bad as Obama.”
That’s precisely my point: Things are getting progressively worse in America. Even a socialist liberal like Mondale could not have grown to be a presidential candidate of the Democratic party in the 1980s if he had been as bad as Obama. But now Mondale (like Hillary Clinton in 2008) would count as a “conservative Democrat” and would be primaried by more liberal Democrats. There is a steady descent from Johnson / Kennedy (who were at least anti-communists) to Mondale and now to Obama on the Democratic side. And there has been a similar decline on the Republican sideat least since Reagan
Maybe I see things too bleak (it is certainly in my nature to do so), but if a man like Obama is reelected after his goals have been clearly on display for four years, because his opponent is a genuine Christian, then a majoity of Americans obviously would like to destroy America or are at least indifferent to it. Every Democracy gets the Government it deserves.
“The Church, the Roman Empire, the British Empire were all on the brink of destruction on several occasions”
Yes, they were. And the British Empire is today a shadow of its former glory, decaying even more rapidly than the USA. The Roman Empire was overrun by barbarians. The Church has not been destroyed, but this is only because of a ludicrous amount of Divine intervention. She has certainly tried her best to destroy herself over and over again, humanly speaking. All great nations die at some point, or they decay beyond recognition. There are no natural exceptions. And this gets me to my next point. You say:
“Yes, there is no great country who can’t destroy itself in the space of one-two generations, but the secret of great countries is that they are aware of that.”
Is America aware of it? America is sleeping.
No matter whether one believes Iraq and Afghanistan were wars that should have been fought (one could argue about it, but I don’t intend to do so). If one fights a war, one fights to win, right? Just look at what America has done. She has fought many wars, but at least since Vietnam never really with the intention of winning.
Is America aware of its impending financial collapse, or its moral decline? I don’t see any signs of an awakening. America sleeps, and if you sleep too long in a dangerous world, you will die.
“Santorum winning in Iowa and third with 17% in South Carolina. Eight months ago, it looked like a fantasy.”
Yes, it did. But Santorum won 25% of the vote in Iowa and 17% in South Carolina. These are among the most conservative republican caucus/primary electorates. They seem to me a retreating minority, proving that it has still a certain amount of influence in one of the parties, but no longer enough to really influence things. And since schools, colleges and universities (as well as most media and what passes as popular „culture“) all over the west are firmly in the hand of leftist ideologies who are destroying genuine learning (and genuine culture) in favor of soviet-style indoctrination, the next generation will be even more thoroughly indoctrinated than the previous one.
In twenty years, someone like Obama will be a “conservative Democrat”, Republicans will be “reaching out” to in order to get a Republican into the White House. Not a radical conservative like John McCain, of course (we must not look unelectable…), but someone like, well, Hillary Clinton. Even the Tea Party movement has not changed this dynamic. Today, the Tea Party is also retreating, having been drowned in a flood of leftist propaganda with even Gingrich attacking Romney on his financially successful past, just like the liberal Democrat he seems to be impersonating…
At the same time, the Church in America is, while still more reliable than in Europe, rather tame and its numbers are shrinking, except among hispanic immigrants (legal or illegal), whose primary concern in the future will be securing for themselves the welfare system. Expect a return of something like Liberation Theology in the next generation. It will be a heresy, but who cares in this brave new world of aggiornamento? Possibly a Pope Pius XIII. could improve things on those fronts, but if the Vatican really started to care again about heresy, there would immediately be a hugely successful schism among “liberal” Catholics taking with them at least ninety percent of Catholics in Europe and a majority in the USA.
At the same time, Catholics and Protestants are aborting their children at the same rate as everyone else, divorcing at the same or even higher rates than secularists. They are clearly recognizable by their fruits.
A Renaissance is possible, but the precondition of being born again (re-naissance) is first being born and then dying. So, just like you, I think America still has a decent chance of being rescued, but it will be a Renaissance, like Phoenix rising from the ashes of the America we know. And this Renaissance will not be helped by the young generation, which is way more socialist and less Christian than any other before it.
Catocon, your message is so long I must decide whether to write my blog or answer your messages.
In short, I agree with you we are in a worse position today than we were in Reagan’s time. What I think is that the same wave of sixty-eighters top-smoker has now rolled into that age where they are in power (as bishops, too) and therefore the damage they make is more visible. But this does not mean the pendulum might not already be swinging the other side (as is already happening for the bishops).
I see it as a wave which started to roll in the times of Joan baez and has now come up to the White House out of the sheer force of demographics. Give it one or ttwo generations – mich less, if my hopes are founded – and this will be buried under a mountain of shame and embarrassment, a development we are alreayd seeing in the case of Vatican II.
M
Perhaps we all need to take a breath and soak in a little reality. May I respectfully submit the following thoughts of a solid Catholic thinker on these issues:
http://catholicism.about.com/b/2012/01/22/put-not-your-trust-in-princes.htm?nl=1
We have to take off the rose-colored glasses if we are ever to turn this mess around.
Schmenz,
I respectfully think if we are to ever turn this mess around we must take off the gloom-coloured glasses. The chap sounds like a 99 years old with a terrible ulcer.
M
“Catocon, your message is so long I must decide whether to write my blog or answer your messages.”
No problem. Writing the blog is more important! 🙂 I’ll try to shorten my comments in the future.
Thanks, my friend!
M