I think it is time for a reality check. Since Tuesday, all we have heard is that Obama won because "Americans voted to get other people's money", as if medicare, medicaid, and public assistance were the only issues being discussed in this election. Well, that's half true. They are the only issues that were being discussed by the right. The problem is that most Americans didn't particularly care about those issues.
I can only speak for myself here, however, I, myself, have been accused of voting for Obama solely because of public assistance. Not only is that patently untrue, it is more than a little insulting. It is insulting not the least of which because it means that members from the right have been wasting my time responding with drivel to my posts, and threads without actually reading a single word I wrote. I can only assume this to be true, because if they had been reading what I wrote, they would have known that there were a plethora of issues with which I had concern.
Allow me to set the record straight. The truth is I actually believe that Romney has a better understanding, from a businessman's perspective, of the economy than Obama does. This means that, while I do believe that Obama can, and will, get us back on track, Romney would quite possibly have been able to do it faster. This is because I am, contrary to popular opinion, a fiscal conservative.
Now, this does not mean that I agree with every theory of fiscal conservatism. Notably, I believe that the "trickle down" theory of economics has pretty decidedly been proven not to work. However, I do believe that reducing budgets, while increasing revenue, leads to a more efficient government. I also believe that while some regulation is necessary to protect consumers, workers, and the environment from predatory practices, that over-regulation is anti-business, and kills jobs.
Unfortunately, in order to support Romney's fiscal conservatism, I would also have been forced to accept his social conservatism - his anti-abortion, fetal personhood, unscientific position on reproductive rights; his moralistic, repressive, religion-based position on marriage equality, and gay rights; and his misogynistic, unenlightened, uninformed position on equal pay. I would have had to accept that he would have placed on the Supreme Court justices that would have moved our court closer to a socially conservative, and repressive position than the court has had in over a hundred years.
And I do not believe that I am alone in this view. So, I am more than willing to accept that our economic recovery will take a little longer, in order to protect the individual liberties of myself, and my fellow Americans. I will not sacrifice individual liberty in favour of a little economic security. So long as the Republican party insists on marrying their fiscal conservatism with social conservatism, I will never vote Republican, and this has nothing to do with wanting "stuff", or "other people money". For conservatives to continue to insist that that is the sole reason that people voted for Obama does more to expose their own myopathy than it does to make any kind of commentary on the people who voted for Obama.
I realise that this will be dismissed by everyone on the right. However, if the right does not take the time - and soon - to consider that their social agenda is costing them support for their fiscal agenda, then the Republican Party is in serious risk of losing any chance it ever had of reclaiming its former glory, and will fade into historical obscurity.