Rush is wondering how Conservatives can possibly consider not voting for Romney. This requires a detailed understanding of group competitive drives, and why they exist.
Obviously, from an intellectual perspective, leaving Obama in office would be a disaster for the country. However, as we assert, much of political decision-making is emotional in nature, and is based on r or K-selected behavioral drives. In this case, K-selected human psychologies are designed for group competition. One of the requirements of this psychology is a fierce animus for any disloyalty to in-group. Those individuals who tolerated the disloyal within their ranks found their groups disadvantaged, and eventually culled.
Clearly, Romney is probably not that loyal to the Conservative movement. As a result, he is triggering a strong desire to remove him from our in-group, as well as a strong desire to keep him from any leadership position in our in-group. In a state of K-selection in nature, this urge would produce a group with a leader who would be fully aligned with the in-groups interests, and thus more effective at leading the group to competitive success.
I suspect if one were able to measure K-selected Conservative drives, the desire to punish treason by an in-group member would exceed even the desire to defeat out-group members. Even in war, treason can be remedied with a swift battlefield execution, while captured enemy soldiers nearby are treated with decency and respect. In the case of Romney and the GOPe, this urge will produce a desire to defeat Romney which will exceed the desire to defeat Obama, at least in some highly K-individuals with strong group competitive drives.
The problem is, a fissure has opened up within the Republican Party between the diehard K’s, and a group of individuals who are less driven by K drives, and more pragmatic in their principles as they simply seek power and influence over the future. If this pragmatic group were to grasp this work, and better understand the motives and reasoning embodied by the grassroots activists within their party, they would have a tremendous advantage. They might come to grasp how to both, present a candidate who can appeal to the masses (who themselves have a strong K-type psychology overall), as well as appeal directly to the highly K-selected group that comprises their base.
As it stands now, it is not impossible that Romney will lose 1-3% in his vote totals due to diehard K’s lacking the motivation to get to the polls. I suspect he will still win, based on the state of the economy, however he would have it easier, if he could find a way to appeal to that highly K-selected base. Of course, from now to November is an eternity, and anything can happen.
Perhaps the greatest single move he could make would be to select a running mate who the highly K-selected could rally behind, similar to how Sarah Palin united Conservatives behind McCain.
The first name to come to mind would be William “Jerry” Boykin, current leader of the Family Research Council. A devoted Christian, and ex Delta Force Member, retired Lt. Gen. Boykin would allow these committed K-types to overlook Romney’s flaws, by giving them a highly K-selected leader to rally behind.
Additionally, were Boykin the VP candidate, nobody could ignore that if Romney was elected, his heir to the office would be one of the Conservative movement’s top choices for President, further softening the blow of a Romney Presidency, and making his eight years far more palatable.
Of course, Boykin has shown, he is not the type of pansy to mince words, and as a result, it is likely the GOPe would be aghast to see such a true man, and consummate Warrior rise to a position of power within the party. It’s all just further evidence of how out of touch the leadership of the Republican Party has become with the K-selected roots of it’s own ideology. I suspect, at some point, this will come to a head.
