“If you have courage and convictions, your new soulmate will be Steve Deace. He delivers.” —Mike Huckabee

Radio shows

What Happens to Democrats if Obama Loses?

By Steve Deace

Much has been made about the in-fighting and feuding within the Republican Party, and not only is it accurate but if anything it’s probably under-reported by the mainstream media. Should Mitt Romney lose in November, you will see the political equivalent to Antietam within the GOP leading up to 2016.

But the same carnage will occur within the Democrat Party if Obama loses this fall, and it might actually be worse. It’s just you wouldn’t know it, because the internal problems among the Democrats are not as widely exposed by the fourth estate.

To understand why the Democrats are at the same crossroads as are the Republicans, you must first understand the differences in structure and methodology between America’s two major parties.

For all its talk of local control, the Republican Party is ironically a very top-down organization with most of the power concentrated inside the Beltway. Many state and county Republican Parties in this country are little more than glorified bridge or rotary clubs, where who’s bringing what for the potluck (and who’s responsible for the clean up afterwards) is the most hotly debated topic. That’s because most Republicans do not view participation in politics to be among their top priorities. They’re often more focused on their careers, businesses, churches and families. Government for most of them is a necessary evil at best.

Furthermore, it is ideology that drives most Republicans to become Republicans. When someone thinks Republican the brands they think of first are issue-based: small government, less taxes, pro-life, pro-family values, strong national defense, etc. At its core the GOP is an ideologically-driven party. Unfortunately, running that ideologically-driven party is a ruling class atop that top-down organization that is not as ideologically-driven, which leads to the much-publicized in-fighting within the GOP. There is constant tension between conservatives and the Republican establishment, and that tension will come to a head if Romney (the establishment candidate) fails to beat Obama as his establishment predecessor John McCain did.

For all its talk of consolidation, the Democrat Party is ironically a very bottom-up organization. It is much more organized at the state and county level across the country than are the Republicans. The local powerbrokers and tribal chieftains of the Democrat Party are likewise much more empowered. If Republicans view government as a necessary evil, Democrats see government as necessary for good. Many Democrats believe that access to and activation of government is necessary to advance their values. They often view government as vital to do whatever it is they seek to do in and with their personal lives, so participation in government is among their top priorities.

Furthermore, it is identity that drives Democrats to become Democrats. When someone thinks Democrat the brands they think of first are people-based: black, Hispanic, single moms, working class, homosexual, etc. At their core the Democrats are a constituency-driven party. Unfortunately for them, now running their party is a more issue-driven, hard-left worldview that is more interested in Progressive Social Reconstructionism than it is the traditional (and in my opinion flawed) Democrat Party principle that government is necessary to guarantee fairness for all people groups. This will lead to increasing tension within the Democrat Party that has been exposed in recent weeks, and it will come to a head if Obama joins Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush as the only presidents to lose their re-election campaigns in the last 80 years.

This may be a surprise to many of you reading this because most of you are conservatives, and most conservatives don’t understand the inner-workings of the Democrat Party. In a nut-shell, the leadership of the Republican Party is more moderate-to-liberal culturally than the base of the Republican Party is. On the other hand, the base of the Democrat Party is more moderate-to-conservative culturally than the leadership of the Democrat Party is.

The true leftists in the Democrat Party are not found at the local county Democrat central committee in Montana. That person is likely just a Democrat because they don’t trust corporate America, and either has no conviction on social issues either way or is “personally” pro-life and pro-family. The true leftists in the Democrat Party are found in leadership and on the biggest platforms the party has in media and pop culture.

Meanwhile, Republicans are the exact opposite. True conservatives are usually not found in leadership in Washington, D.C. or even on many national platforms the Republicans have, but are the local people in the grassroots. Even conservative media superstars like Rush Limbaugh had to literally build their own platform apart from the Republican Party power structure of their day.

Since the moderate-to-liberal leadership of the GOP is what is presented as Republican to the masses, and the progressive-to-leftist leadership of the Democrat Party is what is presented as Democrat to the masses, the false assumption is that the only real argument left in this country is over the speed and not the direction.

But then how do you explain the fact a hot-button issue like marriage is now 31-0 in direct referendum elections, and has won in notoriously liberal states like California, Oregon, and Maine?

The answer is simply this: the moderate-to-conservative base of the Democrat Party joins with the conservative-to-very conservative base of the Republican Party in each of these states to create a winning coalition that operates outside of the ruling class.

Fast forward to November if Obama is defeated.

Obama has opened up a fault line within his own party. In 2008 Obama ran as a traditional Democrat populist. The soaring rhetoric about bringing America’s disparate people groups together, along with the narrative of voting for America’s first black president, unified Reagan Democrats and enough right-of-center independents to create Obama’s winning coalition. However, in 2012 those groups are now up for grabs because they did not get what they previously paid for. Instead, what they got was a hard-left, progressive-educated former college professor/community organizer from the Ward Churchill wing of the party.

Even now, with his very political survival on the line, Obama cannot resist the temptation to go hard-left on issues like homosexuality and demagogue a private equity firm like Bain Capital (full disclosure, I used to work for them) for doing exactly what our economy desperately needs private equity firms to successfully do. The Obama Regime is so convinced that traditional Americana is out of the mainstream, they believe a winning argument against Romney is to do a better job of convincing Americans Romney is a conservative (when he’s not) than Romney has done convincing conservatives he’s one of us the past five years.

Just as conservatives are frustrated with Romney’s inability to articulate a principled conservative conviction on any issue, the Democrat base that doesn’t want to lose the presidency to a corporatist Republican is frustrated with Obama’s unwillingness to broadcast a case for his re-election as opposed to narrow-casting leftist, progressive talking points.

Whether it’s Newark Mayor Corey Booker urging Obama to stop vilifying private enterprise, or black ministers criticizing Obama for turning his back on the Word of God on homosexuality, the Democrat base has the same problem with Obama the Republican base has with Romney.

That problem is no man is capable of rising above his own worldview.

Obama can’t help but regurgitate the leftist-progressive talking points because he’s a leftist-progressive. Similarly, Romney can’t help but run as the human etch-a-sketch, soul-less technocrat because that’s exactly what he is.

For as a man thinks in his heart, so is he.

The American people are in a real predicament at such a pivotal point in our history, faced with a presidential election between a man with no principles and another with all the wrong ones. Almost half of the American people said in a recent Rasmussen survey they’re faced with an election between “the lesser of two evils.” Other polls show the American people don’t want Obama to be president, and don’t trust Romney to be. It’s barely June and Romney and Obama have barely unleashed their considerable campaign war chests upon one another in a race to the bottom. Imagine what those numbers will look like after five months and over a billion dollars spent from both sides on attack ads.

If Obama wins this war of attrition, it will set off an ideological cleansing of the Republican Party in 2014 and 2016. The battle cry will be it’s time to return to stalwart conservative principles after back-to-back losses by Mitt McCain.

If Obama loses, you will see a constituency-led civil war among the various people factions of the Democrat Party, especially with no obvious heir apparent to Obama (Hillary Clinton will be 68 years old), and each blaming the other for losing to a flip-flopping, rich white guy with a quirky religion. The first fingers will be pointed at the hard left leadership of the Democrat Party, and folks like the 40% of Democrats that voted for marriage in North Carolina recently will be the ones doing the finger-pointing.

There is a light at the end of the tunnel symbolizing an oncoming train for the ruling class after November, the only question is which ruling class gets steamrolled.

(You can friend Steve Deace on Facebook here and follow him on Twitter here)

 

  • Larry

    I so fear a Romney win.

    The conservative movement just doesn’t have the time left to go through what Romney will bring us.  Romney “going to China” while our politicians are “taking one for the team”.  Romney using his role as “leader of the Republican party” to ideologically cleanse the Republican party of those nasty tea party and Christian right types (heck they have done a good job of that before Romney, just think of the Pogrom a Republican PRESIDENT Romney could orchestrate against us).

    And I really think you are wrong about your analysis of the Democrat Party.  They aren’t like the Republican party.  They actually stand for something. They stand for principles. Don’t get me wrong, evil, harmful, immoral,  bad, Godless  principles, but at least they stand for them. I am one for giving the Devil its due and I envy how well the Democrats stand by their principles.

    Look, if the Democrat were like the Republicans Hillary would be our President. She was the “next one in line” for them. She had all the establishment support. Yet somehow a grassroots candidate was able to come out of nowhere and defeat this establishment candidate.  I hate the result, but yeah, I envy the process.  They didn’t compromise. They didn’t just “pick the one who would appeal to moderates”.  They went full out this is who we are and this is who we believe in and it worked.

    So, no an Obama lost would not begin an internal Democrat revolution the way you describe.  The activists will “double down” (seems to be a popular term these days). They would see their lost as a result of nothing wrong they did but as a result of our country still being too racist.   They would claim that Obama just didn’t go FAR ENOUGH.  That is their way, that is their mentality. Look at their history.  Historically they have been proven wrong time and time and time again, but that doesn’t stop them from continuing along in their ways.  What do they always say “it’s just that the right people haven’t tried it yet”.

    Make no mistake. A Romney win will be DEVASTATING to the conservative movement.  We just don’t have the time to recover like we did with Bush. You look at the polls.  You know I am right.  Romney wins and it is GAME OVER for the conservative movement and therefore for our Republic.

    • Fred Nelson

      Sorry to go all Beckeyan on you, but if Romney wins – AMERICA BURNS.  That really is the Left’s game plan.

      And it worked for them before, well at least it didn’t harm them.  The LA Riots, the Rodney King Riots, that was in April of 1992.  Clinton won in November of 1992, and while perhaps it would be wrong to attribute the win to the riots (it was the economy, stupid) at the very least the riots didn’t scare people away from Clinton.

      Look, I really don’t take kindly to threats and yeah, that alone might make part of me stand up and say “I dare you” but really, for someone like Romney.  It would be worth seeing our streets burn for like a Reagan, but for a Romney?

      Sorry, Romney isn’t worth seeing our cities burn over.

      • Allen Jasson

         Oh, and what would President Elect Romney do with that?

        We need a Massive BAILOUT BILL for all the cities effected by the riots (with a lot of unrelated spending too of course).

        So basically we get crony capitalism either way. It’s all about who’s cronies get the money.

        And of course the Republicans in the House and Senate will go along “take one for the team”. And a lot of the conservative grassroots will be asleep since “we won” we can “go home again” and stop paying attention.  Beck will probably be going “I told you” and other talk show hosts will be trying to defend the indefensible.

        Yeah, I don’t like being threatened much either, but I think I would rather take the option where our cities don’t burn.  I mean if I saw us gaining something like a good president out of it then yeah it would be worth it but all I see it gaining is another bailout like what Bush did in 2008.

        After all, we have to do something. Our urban centers are in shambles after the riots. But we can trust Romney to rebuild our cities. After all, he put on the Olympics way back when, he has proven that he can run big government “effectively”.

  • Jenny Kennedy

    Steve, I know “Mothers Jones” doesn’t usually hit your reading list but this article about who Romney listens to in regards to the Global Warming Scam is pretty interesting.

    Check it out here.

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/05/mitt-romney-gina-mccarthy-climate-change

    Meet the new boss, same as the old boss…

  • Desmoinesdem

    Speaking as a politically active Democrat, I think that if Obama loses most Democrats will believe it was because of the weak economy. The unemployment rate among traditionally Democratic-voting groups is much higher than it is nationwide. I don’t see a big “civil war” potential before 2016, because Democrats don’t have as big a fault line as the GOP (with business/country club Republicans and the social conservatives blaming each other).

  • bbailey

    If Obama does lose in November, it will be doubly hard for those dems who stuck their necks out for Obamacare and were handed a pink slip in 2010.  With the repubs already capitulating on pieces of Obamacare, I no longer worry about Obama winning again.  If were driving off a cliff, why not floor it?

  • Susan Benson

    ” If Obama wins this war of attrition, it will set off an ideological
    cleansing of the Republican Party in 2014 and 2016. The battle cry will
    be it’s time to return to stalwart conservative principles after
    back-to-back losses by Mitt McCain.”

    But if Mitt wins then for a generation the “republican game plan” will be “be like Mitt” when it comes to how to conduct a Presidential campaign.

    And in a generation (if things don’t get turned around soon) there won’t be any conservative movement to speak of so our society will be lost.

    If Romney wins it will be EIGHT years before a Conservative even has a CHANCE of becoming President. And that is if Romney loses in 2016.

    People ask can we afford four more years of Obama. I say, well we certainly can not afford EIGHT years before a conservative becomes President.

    Time was never on the side of conservatives.  If Obama wins we will perhaps have one more, one more chance of turning things around. If Romney wins it will be the end of us.

  • http://www.facebook.com/IowaFreedomFund Steve

    You’re giving the Republican Party far too much credit with this line:
    “Furthermore, it is ideology that drives most Republicans to become
    Republicans. When someone thinks Republican the brands they think of
    first are issue-based: small government, less taxes, pro-life,
    pro-family values, strong national defense, etc. At its core the GOP is
    an ideologically-driven party.”

    Both major parties are mass parties organized largely around culture and demographic lines.  I’d suggest that no more thought for ideology goes into the decision to be Republican for white, rural, evangelical, southern, non-union working class people than does the decision to be Democrats for “black, Hispanic, single moms, working class, homosexual, etc.”

Deace on TV