That is, of the ruling class and the country class, Gingrich seemed to be making the same kind of point. At least, it seems that he was formulating the kind of strategy that could work in defeating the ruling class and winning elections.
Gingrich said you need to identify 80% issues and organize around them. These will crush the opponent, which is the ruling class. I think this may be correct, because the ruling class is really not that big. They have influence far greater than their numbers. The reason they are so successful is their superior organization and unity. The country class is a disparate bunch and cannot unite. Gingrich's 80% idea was a way that could have done that. Now, if Gingrich could have practiced what he preached, he may have led the country class to victory over the ruling class ( with Obama at the head of it ) in 2012. Gingrich's singular failure was he could not do this.
The telling point is after Super Tuesday when Gingrich insisted upon staying in the race when it was clear he should get out and endorse Santorum. Could Santorum have won v Romney the rest of way? Perhaps not, but there was no chance as long as the not-Romney party remained divided. Romney appears to be a part of the ruling class. Most of the GOP didn't like him. There is a faction in the GOP that is part of the ruling class and is content with being the junior partner in that coalition. Most of the GOP is in the country class and didn't trust Romney. Confirming this theory, Romney's "beanbag" approach to the general election cemented the country class' loss once again to the ruling class. Thus, the failure to unite early enough in the contest so that the ruling class could be possibly defeated was a key point in the 2012 race. Gingrich simply failed to live up to the necessity of the moment.
No comments:
Post a Comment