It's not enough to be right. Don't get me wrong; it is necessary, but it's not enough.
Any ideologically driven observer of events in our nation would be understandably baffled by the question: How could the same nation elect two such diametrically opposed presidents as Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama in such a short time? It is axiomatic that Reagan was a limited-government, pro-business, anti-socialism, peace-through-strength conservative, and Barack Obama is a government-owns-everything-INCLUDING-YOU, America-is-so-self-centered-she-deserved-to-be-attacked, peace-through-apologizing-for-capitalism socialist.
To what shall we attribute the fact that this country has exalted both these men to the highest office in the land? The phenomenon can't be legitimately attributed to turnover in voter rolls. I voted for Reagan twice. Soon I will have voted against Obama twice. And I intend to vote in 9 or 10 more presidential elections. My point is this: these two were elected well within one lifetime, mine. And I am far from a unique member of that club. So you can't blame it on a complete turnover of voter rolls.
What, then? If you argue that there is a pendulum effect at work here from conservatism to liberalism and back again, as is common throughout American political history, the stark ideological contrast between these two men would turn your argument into an accusation that the American people are schizophrenic. Some of us may be, but not all.
What do you remember about Ronald Reagan, the candidate? Ronald Reagan, the man? He was an actor. He was quick-witted. He was good-looking. Articulate. Optimistic. Funny.
What about Obama? Good-looking, check. Articulate, check. Optimistic? Sure! His 2008 campaign could be summed up in two words, the first of which was "Hope." And his campaign slogan was "Yes we can!"
So what's the point? What's the bottom line?
If fellow ideological purists want to gain any traction with the general public they had better work hard at being LIKABLE.
