Menzies House

David Cameron has a Mitt Romney Problem

Dan Whitfield discusses the similarities between David Cameron and Mitt Romney - and how this spells bad news for Cameron:

After Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee for President was defeated last November, British political prognosticators predicted that the result was a good omen for David Cameron and a warning for his opposite number on the Labour benches, Ed Miliband.

They are wrong.

It’s easy to see why the experts made such a mistake.  After all, President Obama won reelection with unemployment hovering at 8% - something no occupant of the White House has ever done before (the closest was Ronald Reagan, who was reelected in 1984 with unemployment at 7.2%).  Obama won in spite of the gridlock paralyzing Washington (for which he is largely responsible), contempt for politicians at record levels, and smoldering resentment over his reform of the American healthcare system.

President Obama also won despite his opponent, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, effectively stealing the mantle of change.

Such similarities to the political situation in the UK will not have gone unnoticed by Tory High Command.  That's why, on the surface, President Obama's reelection is delightful news for Cameron.  Even now, perhaps, advice is being poured into the Prime Minister's ear, urging him to follow the path blazed by the President.  To win a reelection campaign of his own, all David Cameron need do is remind voters of the mess he inherited, emphasize the indicators which point to an economic recovery, and expose his opponents glaring shortcomings.  Follow the Obama recipe, and another 5 years in Downing Street beckon.

But a close look at exit polling should have Conservatives nervous.  It shows that Mitt Romney lost for exactly the same reasons that have damaged British Tories generally, and David Cameron in particular.

A Plea for Sartorial Sanity

Dan Whitfield presents this lighthearted piece advising young persons starting work in the conservative movement to learn how to dress!

In the corridors of power, summer brings out that most exotic of political fauna: the intern.  Propelled by a sense of purpose seldom seen in people who have lived in politics for longer than six months, interns head to think tanks, congressional offices, and advocacy groups to dream big dreams while buying the bagels.  Democracy simply could not function without interns to fill the printer with paper while smiling at whichever local big-shot comes into the office.

But our intrepid interns should heed the sage advice that first impression count.  It takes but a moment for the power-players and cocktail party circuit to determine if you are a young professional who just happens to be an intern, or a kid from the country who’ll be heading back as soon the summer comes to a close.  If you dress like someone who is going places, you’ll be treated like someone who is going places.  Dress like an intern, and there are no prizes for guessing how you’ll be treated.

Young female interns endure the added misery of being preyed upon by lecherous old insiders, who often mistake a revealing dress to be an invitation for dinner and drinks.

So if a plucky intern is to make the leap from holding a boss’s bag to holding a ministerial portfolio, they need to take a good look at their wardrobe.  Good clothes are the perfect foundation on which to build a career in politics.  Make the wrong sartorial choices, and you could suffer the indignity of being mentioned on blogs like this.

But why, I hear you ask, are cloths and bearing still so important?  After all, Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, and Richard Branson all dress down, and if these Masters of the Universe are happy to forgo a tie and pressed shirt, then surely an intern from Wichita can do the same?

Wrong.  Aside from the obvious point that any intern who compares himself to the founder of Facebook has a seriously over-inflated ego, the fact is only those who reach the rarified heights of success can get away with dressing-down.  Until you create a multi-billion dollar enterprise, it’ll be a neck tie for you, sir.

Sometimes, the Messenger Is More Important Than the Message

Smearing political figures online can be just as damaging as in print, writes Dan Whitfield.

Yesterday, British Foreign Secretary William Hague released a press release in which he provided intimate details of his marriage.  This was in response to internet rumors about an improper relationship between Mr. Hague and a male aide, based on the most flimsy of evidence.

The whole episode is a great shame, particularly because the male aide in question has been forced to resign having done nothing wrong.  It has led some people to question whether blogging, and other forms of journalism based exclusively on the web, are having a negative impact on political discourse in Britain and the world.

Populism and the Law – tearing Conservatives in opposite directions

The US Constitution should not be sacrificed for the sake of populism, writes Dan Whitfield.

While Australians feverishly engage in a general election campaign, the US recently found itself fighting another battle in the Culture Wars – those perennial fights between Left and Right over the moral fortitude of the Land of the Free.

Judge Vaughn Walker, Chief Judge of the District Court for the North District of California, recently upheld that the state's ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional.  The ban had taken effect the previous November, when Californians – who voted overwhelmingly for liberal presidential candidate Barack Obama – also voted to ban marriages between homosexuals.

Judge Walker's decision prompted a surprisingly muted response from conservatives, which suggests that social issues will not play in this election season while the economy teeters on the brink of another recession.

The Life, Soul, and Future of the Party: Why Libertarians are Unwise to Shun the GOP

Libertarians may be the future of the Republican Party, writes Dan Whitfield.

In November 2008, it wasn’t only the Democrats who cheered as the Republican Party suffered electoral catastrophe.  Across the country, pockets of people huddled around TVs and computer screens, celebrating the defeat of John McCain, and scores of other Republicans lower down the ticket.  They were the libertarians.

Strangely, 2008 was a good year for the defenders of liberty.  This may sound ludicrous, given that the hard-left won control of both Congress and the White House, but the global economic downturn spurred a rapid mobilization of libertarian activists dedicated to paring back the power of government.  The two major political parties had easily dismissed the libertarians as a radical fringe, but with profligate congressional spending reaching record levels, large numbers of people were drawn to the banner of liberty.