Simple explanation

L. Scott Lingamfelter
Published: November 28, 2008

By L. SCOTT LINGAMFELTER

Richmond Times-Dispatch

Sometimes politics can be parsed too much. Yet there is no end to the complex, pseudo-intellectual explanations by the liberal media for President-elect Barack H. Obama’s victory. They are besotted
with joy and very satisfied with their role in boosting Obama’s electoral fortunes almost as much as their efforts to belittle and ridicule President George W. Bush, a man who has kept America safe from
terror attacks for seven years. But I digress.

All of us — the liberal media in particular — should pause a moment and consider Occam’s Razor, a principle of logic developed by a 14th-century English Franciscan monk, William of Ockham. In short,
Occam’s Razor asserts that all other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best. Put another way, the simplest explanation is the most likely one. So it is in this election.

We had a Republican president with one of the lowest approval ratings since Democrat Harry S. Truman left office in 1952. The economy tanked in October. Our Republican brand was devastated by
congressional Republicans who spent like drunken sailors. And our chief opponent, Barack Obama, is the most gifted political preacher in recent memory. Simply put, Republicans abandoned
conservative principles; Democrats started talking about them — and they won.

Consider the evidence.

First, under a Republican-controlled Congress, spending bourgeoned and government exploded. Programs like No Child Left Behind and the Prescription Medicare program added to the debt already
strained by the war on terror (a war we did not begin, but must pursue and finish honorably).

Second, we nominated a presidential candidate who, while representing the highest traditions of patriotism, frequently sided with liberal Democrats. John McCain was the author of the McCain-Feingold
bill that ties the hands of political parties engaging in free speech, a law that ironically contributed to McCain’s defeat by compelling him to rely on public financing while Obama, who pledged to take
public money, went private in a big way and was awash in cash.

McCain was at the center of the disastrous immigration reform bill that provoked a huge opposition by grassroots Republicans and conservative Democrats alike, a group once known as the “Reagan
Coalition.” And his support for the infamous October bailout disappointed fiscal hawks. While an undisputed war hero, McCain was not distinguished as a conservative.

Third, recent polls suggest that up to 20 percent of the people who voted for Obama were self-identified “conservatives.” Other polling shows that despite all the empty platitudes about “change”
and “hope,” America remains a center-right nation that lost confidence in national Republicans to govern conservatively. In their place, Americans chose Obama, who spoke of tax cuts and spending
reform, while avoiding any inflammatory rhetoric that would “scare” conservatives fed up with “Republicrats” and willing to take a chance with someone who at least was talking about things important to
them.

Obama’s almost fatal slip came following his comment to “Joe the Plumber” about “spreading the wealth around.” Even that gaffe wasn’t enough to make voters — frustrated with national Republican
shortcomings — rethink their vote for a freshman senator with only four years of federal service.

In sum, when national Republicans walked away from the Reagan agenda and its underlying principles, the Reagan coalition walked away from them.

If there is a silver lining in all of this for Republicans, it’s that Obama vastly over-promised what he can deliver. He will find this out soon when his Democratic House and Senate “friends” take a moment to
read the budget balance sheet and add to it the $800 billion bailout they just passed (not to mention one in the wings for the auto industry). Moreover, when Obama finishes reading the classified briefs,
he will discover that pulling out of Iraq, working with the Pakistanis, and being harmonious with so-called European “allies” may be more difficult than previously advertised.

The result? Supporters who were mesmerized by Obama’s vacuous promises of hope, change, and “I’ll get you there!” will be very disappointed when they realize that the “there” Obama pointed to looks
more like the “here and now,” which doesn’t comport to the “Otopia” he framed between well-situated teleprompters.

That said, Republicans would be wise not to depend on Obama’s failures. People want leadership, not sideline sniping. They want a positive, can-do style of governance that looks for solutions leading to
lower taxes, more freedom, and greater opportunity. They are fed up, angry, and want a better place to raise a family, grow a business, and provide for a stable future. The nanny-state, big-government,
high-tax solutions Democrats gravitate to will not answer their concerns. Reagan principles will. The question is will Republicans step up to answer the call? Seems simple, but I wonder if William of
Ockham and the Gipper would agree.

Republican L. Scott Lingamfelter, who represents the 31st District (Prince William and Fauquier) was elected to the House of Delegates in 2001.