Don't Blame the Religious Right, It's Republicans Who Lost the 2008 Election

There's a lot of bickering, finger-pointing, and maybe even a little soul-searching going on in the Republican party about why the John McCain/Sarah Palin ticket went down to defeat. Many political observers have pointed out that by holding on to their socially conservative religious base, the party lost the support of moderate, independent voters who were more concerned about their economic well-being than abortion or gay marriage.

Members of the religious right argue defensively that they turned out in record numbers, just not enough, to overcome the record turnout of voters who were energized to vote for Barack Obama and not against him.

I am not a political pundit or a poll-taker, and I have little sympathy with ideological stances of the religious right, but in this case, I have a strong sense that they are not to blame for their party's defeat.

Rather, I feel that the Republican party has generally treated its base like the “safe” girl or boyfriend you can depend on to take you to prom, even as you secretly hope and hint for someone more glamorous, albeit more fickle, to ask you. But in 2008, Republicans nominated John McCain as their candidate, someone not beloved by the religious and socially conservative wing of the party, and you could almost sense the underlying anxiety of campaign advisers that their “safe” date to the prom might choose to stay home on election day rather than go with John McCain as escort.

This led to the brash and ill-conceived gambit of persuading McCain to choose Sarah Palin as the pretty new face of social and religious conservatism, with her star appeal intended to complement the wisdom and experience of the not-so-lovely, not-at-all-youthful man at the top of the ticket.

The problem for Republicans turned out to be the rest of the American electorate, who were not taken in by appearances but actually wanted some substance beneath the “hockey mom/former beauty queen/Jane Six-Pack” exterior. When Sarah Palin turned out to have little understanding of foreign policy, domestic issues, or the constitutional role of the vice-president, the public found her wanting as a candidate, not to mention a poor reflection on her running mate's judgment.

But worse, the choice of Sarah Palin as the best the Republicans could do for a vice-presidential candidate confirmed the impression that many across the political spectrum have gained of the party's deeply cynical attitude towards voters in general and its inherent contempt for the intelligence of the American public.
Perhaps having succeeded in passing off George W. Bush as the answer to American fears about terrorism, Republican strategists believed that they could sell any candidate to voters, so long as that person was attractive, personable, and able to read a teleprompter with ease.

The election of 2008 proved those strategists wrong, but it make take yet another election cycle for those in charge of the party to stop pointing the finger at their socially and religiously conservative base of supporters, and take a more probing, honest account of their own failures to put forward candidates who have less style and more substance.