{"id":424,"date":"2015-06-04T06:32:52","date_gmt":"2015-06-04T06:32:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/conservativehistorian.com\/?p=424"},"modified":"2019-09-19T21:51:09","modified_gmt":"2019-09-19T21:51:09","slug":"john-locke","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativehistorian.com\/john-locke\/","title":{"rendered":"Will Liberals Always Win Because they Give Away Free Stuff?"},"content":{"rendered":"

One of the great statements of despair of Conservatives is that it is so hard to win because liberals will always promise to use government – or as Thatcher would have thought of it – other people’s money – to provide incentives to voters. \u00a0History proves this thought process is inaccurate.<\/p>\n

Carter wanted to give stuff away more than Reagan certainly did.<\/p>\n

So did Mondale.<\/p>\n

Gore wanted to give away more stuff than W Bush.<\/p>\n

So did Kerry.<\/p>\n

For that matter one of the biggest givers of stuff in our history, Lyndon Johnson, who pioneered the \u201cGreat Society\u201d in which two of three of our largest governement programs were created \u2013 Medicare and Medicaid.\u00a0 Yet his popularity was in such an ebb due to Vietnam and other failed policies\u00a0that he DID NOT EVEN RUN IN 1968.\u00a0 \u00a0Then the guy who did run, Hubert Humphrey lost, then one of the guys who wanted to give away more stuff than Johnson, McGovern, lost in one of the greatest debacles in election history.\u00a0 And who beat him, and Humphey \u2013 Richard M Nixon, the loser in the 1960 presidential election.<\/p>\n

Of course it is always going to be easier to run as a liberal in a democracy.\u00a0 Our roles will always be harder.\u00a0 But take the case of 2012. \u00a0Romney lost for a bunch of additional reasons but his ability to provide largesse to the electorate was but one of many issue:<\/p>\n