In an article published in 2001, Jude Wanniski, the author of The Way the World Works, noted that since 1896, only Republican presidential candidates running on “pro-growth” platforms have won. Republicans advocating “austerity” have invariably lost. With the defeat of Mitt Romney, the election of 2012 continued this pattern, with one addition. Republican presidential candidates offering clueless confusion also lose.
Democracies tend to evolve two political parties, a party of economic growth and a party of income redistribution. If a credible plan for economic growth is offered, the people will vote for it, provided that it does not involve crushing the poorest and weakest members of society. If not, they will vote for income redistribution, in an effort to assure that everyone survives so that they can enjoy the fruits of economic growth, if and when political leaders emerge who understand how to produce it.
If the American electorate decides that income redistribution is the best that is available during an election season, they will vote Democrat. The Democrats long ago nailed down the redistribution (a.k.a., “fairness”) position. This leaves the Republicans the choice between being pro-growth (while also being non-threatening), or losing. In 2012, Mitt Romney and many, many other Republican candidates collapsed into clueless confusion and lost.
Mitt Romney became the Republican nominee because Herman Cain, the only true pro-growth candidate in the primary race that was actually competent to do the job of president, self-destructed over personal issues. However, once Romney had sewed up the nomination, supply-siders started projecting their hopes onto him, and ignoring what he was actually saying and doing.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
