The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Special Report

Conservatism Can Rise Again

By on 11.5.08 @ 6:10AM

America is not as conservative as it seemed in 2004 and it isn’t as liberal as it looks this morning.

America is not as conservative as it seemed in 2004 and it isn’t as liberal as it looks this morning.

What happened is that four years ago, voters put their trust in one political party to run the country and they didn’t like the results, and so, over the course of two elections, they systematically threw out that political party and turned to a different one. If Democrats disappoint the public, they could be waking up on a not so distant November morning just as devastated as Republicans are today.

Those who are in the profession of writing the first rough draft of history would have us believe that a single election result can signal the end of an intellectual tradition, but actual history instructs us otherwise. This is especially true for conservatism, which rose from the staggering defeat of one its own in 1964, to a glorious triumph 16 years later.

John McCain is an honorable man who sacrificed more for this nation than most of us can imagine, but he’s also eccentric and idiosyncratic. During the campaign, he railed against Wall Street greed and excessive CEO pay on the one hand and against his opponent’s plans to redistribute wealth on the other; he called for a spending freeze while proposing that government spend hundreds of billions of dollars to freeze home foreclosures by partially socializing the housing market.

Of all the ways to put these election results in broader historical context, it’s quite a stretch to equate the defeat of John McCain with the end of conservatism.

At the same time, it would be irresponsible and unhelpful to ignore the severe challenges conservatism faces in both the immediate and long term.

WHEN HE ENTERED the presidential race nearly two years ago, most conservatives didn’t give Barack Obama a chance against the vaunted Clinton machine. After he finally emerged victorious from the protracted primary, many conservatives clung to the belief that disgruntled Clinton voters and working class whites in rural areas would deny him the presidency. To date, Obama has proven all of the skeptics wrong.

The sooner conservatives realize that Obama is not merely a gifted orator, but an incredibly talented politician with the potential to be a transformational liberal leader, the better prepared they will be to resist his agenda. In a time of economic crisis, with Democrats having overwhelming control of both chambers of Congress, stopping him will be difficult, but it won’t be impossible.

Although Obama has radical liberal roots, he was elected president by papering over his past, and convincing Americans that he was a pragmatic moderate who would cut their taxes and be more fiscally responsible than President Bush. Democrats won Congressional races in traditionally conservative districts in much the same way. If, once in power, Obama and his Democratic allies cater to their liberal base, it will be jarring to Americans who had something different in mind when they voted for the abstract concept of change.

Conservatives won’t thwart Democrats by name-calling, but by articulating to the country why liberal proposals will have disastrous implications, and emphasizing that there is little room left to expand social programs when the government has to fund a $700 billion bailout — just as tax revenue falls as a result of the shrinking economy.

While the network of conservative think tanks, journalists, and activists will have to spend the foreseeable future on defense, trying to contain the march of liberalism, it will also be a time for the movement to engage in long-term thinking, so that it will be in a position to reassert itself when the political conditions are right. 

Many conservatives would agree that the basket of issues that led to Ronald Reagan’s historic victory don’t have the salience that they did in 1980, when the top marginal tax rate was 70 percent and the Soviet Union still loomed large. But that’s where the agreement ends.

Some of those who identify themselves as conservatives would have us believe that the conclusion to draw from this is that the era of small government conservatism is over, and that the only option is to fight for a conservative welfare state to replace a liberal welfare state. But that was the driving force behind President Bush’s brand of “compassionate conservatism,” which led us to a fiscal disaster that critics now want to blame on traditional conservatism.

Those of us who still believe in fighting for limited government cannot allow this to happen. It’s one thing for the Republican Party to embrace statism, but once the conservative movement does so at the philosophical level, it will no longer have a reason to exist. If people want big government, they’ll support liberalism — conservatives simply cannot beat the real thing.

Page: 1 2  

About the Author

Philip Klein is The American Spectator’s Washington correspondent. You can follow him on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/Philipaklein

Letter to the Editor View all comments (164) |

Lissa Morris | 11.5.08 @ 8:12AM

Thanks. I needed that, this Wednesday, November 5th.

John Vescuso| 11.5.08 @ 8:14AM

The Facist is now going to be in power.
Obama's secret police force , this country has not a clue what they have done, this is the beging of the end for the Constitution, the american people have just elected a non citizen to power, a facist, with executive power who will put this country in tail spin.
Now, the obvious courses are first of all, a global warming tax, a carbon tax, that will further cut into the standard of living, then probably a Third World solidarity tax. So with Obama they are going to say: “We're gonna teach you now into savage austerity, killer austerity, in the name of the polar bears, the ice cap and the Third World.” Now the trick of course is that none of this money will go for the polar bears, the ice cap and the Third World. It will go into the pockets of David Rockefeller, George Soros and other Wall Street thugs, who are running Obama. Because that is what Obama is today, you can look at the cast of characters. It's pretty much the same as Carter: He's got Zbigniew Brzezinski and Mark Brzezinski, that is to say Zbigniew's son who now is on the scene. Zbigniew Brzezinski is the guru of the entire campaign, although efforts are being made to conceal this fact. Brzezinski has put forward the entire profile, the austerity, the globalization and this question of the final showdown with Moscow.

Scott H.| 11.5.08 @ 8:32AM

I think Mr. Klein and others fail to see the steady cultural, educational, and legal gains socialism has made.
For example, you have millions of gen-x'rs and gen y'rs that are worthless in the world job market. They are psychologically and spiritually troubled, and you can't change a person that fundamentally. The world isn't in decline; the West is in decline. We're just the last to fall.

James Crawford| 11.5.08 @ 8:51AM

Fiscal conservatism will be ok but if the Republican continue to embrace social conservatism they will be in trouble. The Republican party is being marginalized to the South. The overall culture is moving to a moderate to liberal social stance especially the coasts. Republicans can not afford to give up the coasts every election.

Kedrick Nitchel| 11.5.08 @ 9:04AM

What are you guys smoking? Aren't you listening? Give it up. I know, I know, it's the liberal press that lied to the public. Americans are way too stupid to think for themselves.

Bogey| 11.5.08 @ 9:04AM

I agree with many things said
but the GOP is now a regional southern party with way too many lunatics of both religious and social variety in its fold.

They've lost college educated whites, and lost 2 to 1 with voters under 30.

yet instead of using their "think tanks", they give us intellectually challenged idiot candidates like Georgie boy instead of his brother.... they give us Dan Quayle and of course Caribou Barbie who was as clueless about the issues of the day as anyone I've seen on the national scene in years.
(even W learned his "talking points" and stuck to them)

this is the party of freedom fries, flag pins, terry schiavo and ted stevens/tom de lay.

no latinos, no college educated whites, few under 30. what are you left with?

good luck in the wilderness. And don't bother asking for my vote until the social conservatives are either muzzled or thrown out and until you stop waging your war on intellectualism with your double digit IQ candidates and your single digit IQ radio hosts.

I loved the McCain of 2000. (and loathed W after 5 minutes of listening to his stupid and tortured speech).. was a lifetime GOP voter.

NO MORE.

love McCain, hate the party.

destroy the "current" party in order to save it.
ya know.. just like that Vietnamese village.

Wendy| 11.5.08 @ 9:05AM

Outstanding! On a fundamental level, the only way for the conservative movement to survive now is to ditch the altruism philosophy--the philosophy that we have a duty to sacrifice for anyone in need--because that is what caused big government conservativism in the first place. We must return to individualism--the philosophy that each man is an end in himself, not subject to the whims of the state.

Alexander| 11.5.08 @ 9:10AM

Well, isn't it that the Clinton years decrease U.S. debt, and Mr. Bush, a conservative increased it?
Of course he didn't do it by helping the poor, but instead he spend all the money to send those poor to war, so they can risk their lifes for the oil industries.
Roles have changed. Today, democrats seem to be more able in fiscal decisions and in keeping a balanced balance sheet than the warmongering conservatism.

Bruce W| 11.5.08 @ 9:13AM

I don't even feel sorry for you. Look at these comments. You really think Obama is the problem when you guys just nationalized risk in the bankingsystem and have spent (as of February) $34,000 per every living Iraqi citizen on the war in Iraq. Your trickle down piss on you conservatism has been roundly rejected by a LOT of voters so it may be time to stop your stupid "socialist" rhetoric and take some responsibility for the fact that conservative ideology has not actually conserved anything in recent times.

Susan | 11.5.08 @ 9:14AM

Social issues and economic issues ARE related. Without intact families the demands on the state to take care of children become overwhelming. What we need to do is articulate our beliefs more clearly and the basis for our beliefs more clearly, not just to each other, but to those who disagree with us. If California can pass Proposition 8, which it did very much with the help of Latino and Black voters, then we can build on both Social and economic conservatism. Conservatism lite never works.

Holly| 11.5.08 @ 9:23AM

I can't agree with you more! To hear the pundits now conservatism and the era of smaller government--or even bothering to fight for it--is dead. But I recall that just a few years ago after the Republican sweep--the pundits were bemoaning the fact that it would be a generation before liberalism could make a comeback. Now six or so years later--here we are. I just don't listen to these broad baseless conclusions--the future depends on what conservatives do from this point forward. And remember--historically conservatism seems to get stronger when it's the the underdog.

I needed to read this--thanks!

Bruce Rockwell| 11.5.08 @ 9:27AM

It isn't so much conservatism that has failed, but the Republican party. And specifically, the fact that Republicans have chosen the false conservative Ronald Reagan as their standard bearer rather than someone like Barry Goldwater. Despite his rhetoric Reagan ushered in the modern era of unimaginable economic malfeasance by borrowing hundreds of billions annually to pay for tax cuts to the wealthy which never deliver on their promise of growth and more revenues. And more problematically, he forged an alliance with evangelicals who don't respect church-state separation like any true conservative would, and have proven to be and will continue to be a drag on any national ticket.

Bob| 11.5.08 @ 9:30AM

Conservatism??? Hah!!! George Bush grew our government and our debt more than any president in history! He made a mockery of the GOP and I for one will never vote for the GOP again until they get back to their roots...small government and fiscal responsibility. As long as the GOP makes it's main issues abortion and gay marriage they will be marginalized to the fringes of society and politics, which is, frankly, where they belong right now. The author and many of the commenters here clearly don't have a clue what REAL conservatism is.

Oh and by the way Vescuso, fascism is defined as the dominance of the military industrial complex...aka the Bush Presidency. Read a book before you expose yourself as an idiot.

john| 11.5.08 @ 9:31AM

Obama has all the intelligence and political savvy of Clinton and a hundred times the self discipline. I forecast that for the forseable future he's going to run rings around the GOP which is going to have to go through a process of finding itself. Judging by many of the comments here which are frankly off the wall that is going to be a difficult process. The country is going to move decisively left, I believe that was going to happen anyway given that we've just seen a Republican admin fully or partially nationalize large tracts of the financial system. Much of this is a response to the failure of Republican policy prescriptions whether we want to face it or not.

Bogey| 11.5.08 @ 9:35AM

social conservatism and this crap about "strong families". Just WHO is against "strong families" exactly?

a sizable majority of Americans don't want govt intrusions into their phonecalls AND bedrooms (another great 'achievement' of the W Bush years) .

They're skeptical about stupid "wars" like the so called "war on drugs" and other idiocies.

They're completely uninterested in neocon adventurism and "country building" much less bringing "democracy" at the point of the gun and the bearing the astronomical costs associated with such a venture.
btw.. what was it that iraq had to do with 9/11 again? and "Islamic terrorism"?
I lost that one again... Anti Israeli terrorists that were housed by Hussein had nothing to do with Al Qaeda... terrorists yes, but under a different banner. (btw Menachem Begin was technically a terrorist too, see hotel bombing)

anyways.. oh yeah the quasi racist immigration GOP scream... forget about Latino vote.

so... let's get back to where we were again.

no blacks. no latinos.
no college educated whites or any people with a triple digit IQ who like to read.

and you're left with... James Dobson and friends, lunatics, religious freaks, single digit IQ radio hosts and other assorted losers.

the recent events have destroyed the "laissez faire" deregulatory business stance that has served the GOP for years (because ultimately will make money betting on greed and stupidity of people)

even that "Wall Street" republicanism because strained in the last decade.

what you are left with?

your're toast.. UNLESS the Dems screw it up. But I don't think they will. It won't be the lefty libs from the Congress running things (though can they be ANY worse than the freedom fries/flag pin crowd and the Tom De Lays, Ted Stevens and Larry Craigs?)

it will be Obama who has shown he has a singularly impressive intellect and temperament.. and ruthless pragmatists like Rahm Emmanuel.

like I said.. enjoy the wilderness.
and like Tony Montana said.... "so dress warm".

David D| 11.5.08 @ 9:35AM

Wow. John Vescuso thinks that Obama is a fascist, when he is the exact opposite of a fascist and when Sarah Palin relied on fascist appeals to state her case. Wendy thinks that Republicans have or, at least, once had an altruistic "streak". Susan thinks that liberals want to destroy families and that depriving a certain group of people of the equal protection of the law is somehow a good thing. It is these crazy beliefs, among so many others, that contributed to Republicans' losses yesterday. America is about to return to its path of fairness and justice, tolerance and community. We're going to leave behind the divisive hatred of the right wing, making our country a better place for all. Your lives are going to get better. Get used to it.

Dave Murray| 11.5.08 @ 9:36AM

While I don't disagree with the central thesis, I would ask the writer to consider how much the GOP has become the prisoner of special interest groups it has reached out to largely because it has lost its appeal to the middle ground. Would its interests and those of the nation not be better served if the GOP were to move back towards its core principles and away from the extremist positions its somewhat cynical pursuit of votes has led it into. On another issue, while George Bush certainly did not invent Islamic terrorism, it can reasonably be argued that his response to it has been ill conceived and may have been motivated by factors other than the nation's interests, notably some warped from of manifest destiny and the happy coincidence that many of his closest friends and supporters have made enormous profits from the venture.

Bogey| 11.5.08 @ 9:44AM

btw.. great comments about what "conservatism" REALLY means and meant..

Barry Goldwater had nothing against gays, for starters.

William F Buckley enjoyed debating REAL isues and real ideas in an intellectual manner, giving the conservative approach 'gravitas' and a logical background.

Even GOP partisan columnists like Krauthammer, Parker and Brooks (and Will) couldn';t quite stomach the complete JOKE the Palin pick was.
(I don't know if the lady is smart or dumb, but she's clearly clueless about the issues and if she can say with straight face about her knowledge of Russsia, much less being UNABLE to tell Katie Couric a SINGLE thing that she reads (other than the Bible) I'd have to bet on STUPID.

I was a Reagan conservative, because he gave the religious right lip service but generally kept them muzzled.

now I'm going to really enjoy the lunatic monstrosity that has become today's GOP burn.

burn mfer.. burn! hahah

Dave Berwin| 11.5.08 @ 9:45AM

Over the next few days, there will be plenty of time to evaluate what went wrong.
Mr. Klein, puts things in the proper perspective. Elections have not changed. They are still about persuasion, demonstrating that your policy comports with enough of the public's self interest. All this banter between different factions of conservatism misses this point. I became a conservative because it is a philosphy which encourages a balanced and healthy outlook of life. That's what we have to present to the American people. It's not enough to call someone a socialist- most people don't even know what the word means, much less anything about its history. We have to go back to showing why less government works- that government can't make you happy, and that it's attempt acheive such an endeavor will end in disaster, because it diminishes human dignity, creativity, and ultimately human power.
Furthermore, we have to take this idea to places where it either hasn't been or where it is censored/resisted- to our schools, universities, inner city communities. This is a challenge that I welcome.

EastIdaho| 11.5.08 @ 9:46AM

This election didn't show a change the center-right stance of most Americans. It didn't show an America which wants big government to solve all its problems.

It was an election which asked questions of the GOP. Why did you spend the past 8 years focused on inconsequential social issues while the financial markets and economy set themselves up for a chaotic fall? Why did you start a costly war in Iraq with no clear idea what the end game was? Why have you moved to create your own big government which socializes downside business risk while maintaining private profits?

Until the GOP can answer those questions clearly and show that they will not make those mistakes again, they will be the minority party in US politics.

MinnItMan| 11.5.08 @ 9:46AM

While I don't disagree totally with the social conservatives, they do make my butt tired listening to them. Regrettably, they are the backbone of the party in my state. I don't have the answer - this is not going to be an easy thing to figure out.

As a more libertarian Republican, I realize there are not many of us as voters, and almost none that are elected. The most reliable elected libertarian-ish politicians tend to be the Tom Coburns.

Jim| 11.5.08 @ 9:55AM

OK, we need to take a moment and reflect on what has just happened. The Republican party did nothing to earn the vote of those who tend to gravitate to historically conservative issues: fiscal responsibility, the power of the individual, a strong national defense, a limited role for government. We can lay this at the feet of George W. Bush and the Republican congress from 2000-2006. I may get slaughtered for this in this forum, but I really think we need to listen closely to what Newt Gingrich says. If you look at his think tank, American Solutions, he has found the central issues Americans view as important and what they see as the best solutions. I really think he is on to something here. And don't forget, the last time the Republicans had the momentum was during the Contract with America congress. Think about it; we need to get back to the basics and solve problems and not take any ideas/functions off the table. The American people respect and appreciate problem solvers.

Tom Paine| 11.5.08 @ 10:02AM

Don't forget, Republicans.

Tom Paine warned that running to the narrow John Birchers in your midst would lose you that election.

Now Paine says this:

You didn't lose that badly. Unfortunately, you lost Shays, but you held on to decent numbers in the Congress.

Turns out, you don't get to slip out the back door, and you will be at the table when the bill comes due.

Now Democrats, however, have to govern sensibly and competently. (It is time for a change, after all.) They'd better not see this as a mandate for the liberal agenda, because it's not.

It is, however, a resounding victory for Obama.
Today conservatives on the radio are going to try to tell you that ACORN fixed the election, or that the media made McCain lose.

Believe none of it. Follow McCain's advice in that concession speech last night, which had guts, character, and wisdom.

Bart| 11.5.08 @ 10:03AM

"...if liberalism fails to adequately confront this and other threats to our national security, then just like during the Cold War, it will be up to conservatives to respond."

The conservative response to the Cold War is what created the Extremist Islamic threats we face today. By propping up and training leaders like Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein during the Cold War, we planted the seeds that lead to this threat. By responding to this new threat in the same way we responded to the old one, we not only deepen it, but provide openings for new, future threats.
A firm but diplomatic approach is needed in our future dealings. We must respect the sovereignty of other nations regardless of whether or not we agree with their leaders. It is up to the people of a nation to throw off the shackles of oppression, much as we did when we became an independent nation. If conservatives believe so firmly that people should be responsible for their own well-being, then why do they feel the need to interfere in the affairs of others, and 'rescue' people from themselves?

A dipolomatic foreign policy is most definitely needed in a Global Economy. We must be willing to sell our products in ANY market, in much the same way that a Republican business owner must be willing to sell to Democrats, or he will go out of business. It is not our job to decide the governmental structure of other nations. The best way to spread our capitalistic and democratic ideology is through trade and interaction with the common people of a nation, not through cutting them off from the rest of the world.

We did not become the greatest nation on Earth by the examples of our strength, but by the strength of our example.

Greg| 11.5.08 @ 10:06AM

I do not think this election was a referendum on conservatism...at least not of the Goldwater variety. It WAS a referendum, I believe, on an Iraq war that many now feel is misguided at best. And a feeling that the GOP President "allowed" the economic collapse. Nevermind that those issues are NOT due to the President, they held him accountable. (It's pretty hard to vote out the Federal Reserve.)

Perhaps it's time to pay attention to the Ron Paul wing of the party...

Joel| 11.5.08 @ 10:11AM

Who would have thought that Republicans could purge their big tent and create such a small one of bible belt southerners and anti-abortion religious fanatics? There was no room for Colin Powell in their tent. If Republicans stick their collective head in the sand and believe that Powell and Weld supporting a Democrat is some kind of fluke, then they are doomed for more misery. The intellectual capacity of that party in rallying behind "Joe the Plumber" was nothing less than insulting. There are those in the Republican party who would push the party further to the right and alienate even more moderates. We'll see who gains control there. For now, let Obama have the opportunity to balance the Supreme Court with younger justices who would protect Roe v. Wade. Also, let Obama reform the tax system so that there is not a further concentration of wealth among the top 1%. The pendulum and the Republican party swung way too far to the right.

Red State Gal | 11.5.08 @ 10:16AM

Many of those who posted here have given us thoughtful and important comments. I would especially like to thank Susan and Dave Berwin for their comments. Yes, social issues and economic issues are related, Yes, we have assumed that young people--our own young people--would understand our values. We conservatives have dropped the ball: we have not articulated these points in a way that makes sense to our young people. And we must work hard now to do so. I take heart that in Arizona, Florida, and California (especially the last two, which voted for Obama), bans on gay marriage were passed. The fight is not lost. But we have little time to turn things around.
Red State Gal
http://redstatefeminists.org

Jim Lynch | 11.5.08 @ 10:16AM

Barack Obama is a Fabian Socialist who has used the tactics of Saul Alinsky extremely effectively. In addition, he had the assistance of a massive media support chorus which kept his history and his policies cloaked in fawning admiration.
The resurgence of Conservatism will be the end result of a journey. The journey will be one of learning, educating and enlightening; one of learning and implementing the Alinsky methodology in order to effectively engage, organize and empower like-minded people in participating in the Conservative movement.
Conservatives can’t compete by trying to be Liberal-light, it’s like having a water-gun fight with a guy with a hose. The Liberals have unlimited capacity to promise and give, by taking from others. To attempt to mirror their policies, but only differentiating yourself by doing it less, is a loser’s approach. George Bush and John McCain have now demonstrated this conclusively. When Conservatives run and act as Conservatives, they usually win.
One element that Conservatives now will have an ample quantity of, is time. And it is that element that will provide the opportunity, because Liberal philosophy and action will ultimately lead to failures. There is a well known quote, " Fabianism feeds on Capitalism, but excretes Communism “, and we know how that works out. The question will be whether or not Conservatives will have invested effectively in preparing, to be able to take advantage of the opportunity when the time comes.

Jim Burns| 11.5.08 @ 10:19AM

Great article by Mr. Klein. I am not sad this morning. I always thought McVain was a lousy candidate. He was a red state candidate nominated by the blue states. He did not deserve to be president. Unless the GOP, both in Congress and locally and with their presidential candidates do not stick to the philosophy of less government, less taxes and less regulation...there will be many Democrat victories for years to come. The GOP failed to listen to the message from their members and they paid for it last night.

Al| 11.5.08 @ 10:24AM

The problem with Reagan conservatism is that on economic and to a smaller extent foreign policy it was anything but conservative from its inception. Between 1980 and 1988, government spending and government debt as a percentage of GNP actually rose significantly. The cover for the "Reagan Revovery" was running up huge trade deficits (draining the world's savings pool). This economic crutch has continued virtually unabated to the persent day. It is patently anti-conservative in the tradition of Goldwater, etc.

The later influence of neo-conservatism has had the same effect in the realm of foreign policy. The notion of pre-emptive military action and nation building is again patently anti-conservative.

Re-invigoration of conservatism will require coming to terms with the contradictions of Reaganism and building a new movement that relies less on social conservatives and extemist views and more inclusive of a truly conservative sentiment that transcends religion, culture and affluence.

Tom E.| 11.5.08 @ 10:26AM

If the GOP is to come back they must break with Wall Street and big business. Business has tried to turn the employee class in this country into a peasant class by flooding the labor market with illegals and visa abusers.

They have shipped millions of jobs overseas through a perversion of free trade that allows Asian countries to rig currencies and prevent the natural balancing of trade deficits. When you run a trade deficit your currency should decline versus the currency of the country with a trade surplus. Big business protected this perversion because they did not want currency fluctuations to wipe out the profit margins of their off-shoring. This is not free trade, but crony special interest capitalism.

These two groups give more money to Democrats and cost the Republicans millions of votes. Cultural and economic populism will work. It is time for a change.

Drew| 11.5.08 @ 10:28AM

If the GOP wants to remain competitive (and this comes from a 56 year old lifelong Democrat), it needs to distance itself from the ideological extremists of the right wing, the Dobsons, the Robertsons, the Hannitys. America circa 2008 is an increasingly diverse country and will only grow more diverse over time - the demographics do not lie.

Reembrace small government and fiscal responsibility; however, the party also needs to become more mainstream, more responsive to all people and less doctrinaire. We ALL love this country, although that hard core far right wing would have you believe that progressives and even centrists are somehow unpatriotic.

A change swept over America last night. You can embrace it, you can disagree with it - but you cannot overcome it with tired anti-intellectual appeals and a pervasive "us versus them" mentality. That ship has sailed.

Jordan| 11.5.08 @ 10:29AM

For those of you who think opposing the political agenda of the sodomy rights movement makes one a fringe religious lunatic, what say you to the fact that every single "anti-gay, pro-family" ballot measure in the country (including California's) passed. What is your response to that?

You can't claim to be a conservative without actually believing in conserving something as fundamental as the family.

MikeF| 11.5.08 @ 10:37AM

It is the very nature of the far left to be arrogant and over reach. Obama and the left will not cut taxes, they will find a convincing (to them) argument to raise them on everyone. Barney Frank is already calling for a 25% cut in defense and Obama will not govern as a moderate. The Chicago machine he is married to will not allow it. National security will suffer and the economy will tank even further.

The Republicans need to regroup around conservatism immediately. The Dems are going to serve up the House and Senate on a silver platter by 2010. The Republicans need to be ready to hit it out of the park. They need to let the young conservatives of the party have the power. They need to mount a massive, relentless, 24 hour a day, 365 days a year public relations machine quickly and not wet their pants every time the Dems say "boo" but get to the microphone faster than Schumer, Durbin and Frank every day, all day and sell the conservative philosophy while the Dems serve up socialism.

The Dems think they have a mandate to move to the far left. But the wins on every gay marriage ban ballot initiative indicate the country is still right of center. The Conservatives need to regain control of the party and start the relentless march back to power today. It will be offered to them in 2010. The question is whether they will be ready to take it.

jdl51| 11.5.08 @ 10:40AM

The republicans became the party of the religious fundamentalists when they failed to be fiscally responsible. You can't let Wall Street runamuck and borrow trillions upon trillions of dollars and still proclaim yourself to be the party of fiscal responsibility. Since Reagan, republican debt is now around $10 trillion with another $2 trillion for 2009 alone. This borders on the criminal. It will take generations to pay down this debt and will hamper growth in the economy for years. Bush alone is responsible for more than half of that debt. The republican party is more concerned about what happens in your bedrooms than what happens in the economy and this is what cost them this election, and many more if they don't change their ways.

Mbuna| 11.5.08 @ 10:41AM

"The sooner conservatives realize that Obama is not merely a gifted orator, but an incredibly talented politician with the potential to be a transformational liberal leader, the better prepared they will be to resist his agenda."

Presumed conflict is what this article is all about and seems to be a central theme to conservative thinking this morning and probably all together. What follows is a commentary I wrote is response to another conservative article by Rich Lowry.
"All hail the end of the Reagan era! That's the cry going up throughout liberaldom as the financial crisis and the impending Democratic electoral sweep threaten the Reaganite troika of deregulation, low taxes and free trade."

This liberaldom that you speak about exists only in your head. Aside from that there simply is no reality to it. This imaginary opposition is required by you. Perhaps it gives you purpose but I wouldn't call conflict a very mature purpose. Get out of your head and into your heart. Be a human being first then you have the common ground of relationship to deal with. Ideology is a tool of separation only without being mastered by humanity. Without that ideology is ONLY a tool for acquiring power and we have seen enough of that these last 8 years.

I invite anyone to scroll down the commentary at the Corner at NRO and look at the comments tonight. They are not comments of human beings entering into relationship with others outside their little enclave. They are the comments of adolescents stuck in conflict and refusing to grow up and become truly human beings. They show no heart. It is as if only a giant game of eternal conflict with others is going on there- with liberals, democrats, socialists, and whatever other bogeyman is in fashion at the moment. You have to be more than that to do the country some good.

Jon| 11.5.08 @ 10:50AM

Obama deserved his win. I am a conservative and COULD NOT allow myself to vote for McCain. His stances on Campaign Finance Reform and Illegal Immigration in addition to the vote to throw money at a deeper problem via the Bailout Bill drove me out of the party.

McCain is no conservative, and neither is Bush. Conservatism is about cutting taxes and limiting the role of government. It's about personal responsibility. Palin wasn't enough to woo me to voting for one of two candidates who is anathema to this country.

I am now a key demographic in all ways, in the new battleground state of NC. Had Romney, Huckabee or Thompson been the nominee I would have voted for them, but McCain isn't fit to be president, he is a SENATOR. Obama will create so many problems... every bit as many as McCain would have, but Obama will destroy the Democrats in under 2 years, just as McCain would have destroyed the democrats. Neither man was competent, just as in 2004. Just as in 2000. I decided not to vote for a jersey, or the lesser of two evils. Frankly, both these men are evil... both these men see government as more important than humanity. It's the easiest thing in the world to be generous with OTHER people's money, and they both are cut from that cloth.

If I have two guys running for pres, and can't stand either of them, as in 2004... do I prefer the one that's SUPPOSED to be for limited government but isn't, or the liberal who is doing what liberals do? I prefer the liberal. I'm sick of having to make excuses for why the party I used to belong to is acting like drunken sailors with my money. The nomination of McCain was contemptuous and detestable to me. I wanted to punish the Republican party, and I'm POSITIVE I'm nowhere near the only one, for their lurch to the center.

If that means we have to suffer crippling taxes to our businesses, especially the energy sector, the invitation of terrorism to try to sway our defense of Israel, the loss of freedom on our airwaves, and other unknown disasters at the hand of an empty suited manchild, then so be it. You have to go through Carter to get a Reagan... voting for moderate faux "conservative" after "conservative" will NOT get you there. Hopefully the era of "Triangulation" and "Rove" are dead, and we can get a principled conservative like Jindall for 2012.

T the D | 11.5.08 @ 10:51AM

I have to take issue with this comment:

"The sooner conservatives realize that Obama is not merely a gifted orator, but an incredibly talented politician with the potential to be a transformational liberal leader, the better prepared they will be to resist his agenda."

I have never, and will never believe that Barack Hussein Obama is more than just rhetoric in a nice suit. He has done little with his political career, except pander to those in power...the people who could help elevate him.

That is not my definition of talented politician. The ability to further your career through radical and questionable means is not a talent, it's an outrage.

~T the D
http://thedrunkelephant.blogspot.com/

Curt| 11.5.08 @ 10:58AM

Conservatives drifted into ideology, made an unholy pact with the religious right, and took over the Republican party. It worked for a while politically, but it led to disastrous governing. You can't enforce ideology on the real world. The GOP ought to get back to its roots, as a moderate, sensible party with intellectually consistent positions aligned with the way the world really is, and what really matters to people - all people.

dcj| 11.5.08 @ 10:58AM

I wonder if a British Conservative who went through a similar - but actually possibly more devastating - experience in 1997 may comment on this extremely well written, thoughtful and reassuring article?

We too were a tired Government which had ceased to be in many ways "Conservative". Taxes were up, wasteful social spending was up, small government was derided - and along came a young Lefty with a huge smile, a pushy wife, a fraulent prospectus, and 100% backing from the media promising all things to all men and to offer "Thatcherism without the nasty bits.".

We saw through him in the end, but the damage was done. Britain in a much less free, much worse governed, much less prosperous, much more debt-ridden country than in 1997.

But if I may make so bold your position is not as bad. You are 6 percentage points behind on the popular vote: we were 15. Blair could do as he wished with our Constitution: The Blessed Obama can't. You still have a blocking minority in the Senate. You still hold power in many states: despite what is said you seem to have a base in many states which you've narrowly lost. We were humiliated: as John McCain said, you fought to the end

Just as I think The Great Obama will, Blair took the UK left while saying he wasn't. But in the end Socialism never makes the masses rich: it just impoverishes them more. The Great One's tax-and-spend agenda will have devastating effects on his own supporters as well as on the country as a whole. (Which might be thought to be fair, in a way)

But one commentator has it spot on. If a conservative party tries to out-left the left, the voters will go for the real one and not the imitation. We began to move to the right in 2007 - and have enjoyed big poll leads ever since. And if you look north, to the "ideal home" of your liberals for so long, Canada has just re-elected an incumbent Conservative despite the economy - because Stephen Harper is a Conservative, not trying to be a pale pink (in British terms!!) shadow of a Lefty.

And we have learnt the lesson that we must not fight amongst ourselves. We did for too long - and the laughter of the Left was our only reward. A debate on policy is one thing: a vicious dogfight is another.

Despite what the left wing media says, Conservatism isn't dead: it will live as long as it represents the desire of people to live free, keep their own money and live their own lives. The only way it risks death is if it stops believing in itself.

Please, please keep the faith. We need a Republican USA.

God Bless America, and remember - the 2012 election is now less than four years away. It's not a long time. The fightback should start now.

Michael| 11.5.08 @ 11:05AM

@Bob -- Fascism (from Merriam-Webster): 1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

I know "fascism" is overused and used improperly. But "dominance of the military industrial complex?" Come on. Bush is a poor excuse for a conservative (though that term means way to many different things these days to even say that), but a fascist? No way.

Conservatism means too many things to say that *it* has failed. If we're talking about limited government, though, then it has not failed, it has been abandoned. The pendulum will swing back -- it always does. The question is, how bad will things get before it happens?

Pat| 11.5.08 @ 11:05AM

Conservatives didn't lose, it was only the Republican Party that suffered defeat. If conservatives believe their principles are sound, then they need a better organization to aritculate them - a new political organization without the Republican Party's baggage of old men and what's worse, old men who are impotent when it comes to conservative political government. The Republicans spend more tax dollars than the Democrats while proving highly inept in regulating the free market.

What the heck are today's Republicans - neither conservative or liberal in action - yet we are asked to couple our futures with a schizoid organization of political and philosophical losers.

Renaldo| 11.5.08 @ 11:15AM

We need a three party system. Social Conservatives religious right. Centrist fiscal reponsibility party and the Liberals (might as call it the Socialist party like everywhere else).

Then it would be Palin vs Jindall vs Obama in 2012

They hold each other in check, always move toward the center and have to build coalitions to get anything done.

Redhead| 11.5.08 @ 11:18AM

I agree with one commenter, that until conservatives drop the social conservativism, they are not going to make a political come back.

Chisoxpoet | 11.5.08 @ 11:24AM

HA HA HA

The era of mean government, and the neo-gilded age is over. The evangelicals are nut jobs who will be marginalized, the crypto racists in the GOP have been exposed and the country is becoming browner, gayer, diverse and more open.

Soon we will have national health insurance, strong unions and we will rebuild our infrastructure- the Reagan era is over.

Tim| 11.5.08 @ 11:25AM

Republicans are victims of their own success. The gun issue is off the table because of the courts. Taxes have been lowered, perhaps too much. . . see debt. Prescription drugs are in the hands of seniors, and they choose their plan. Schools have been reformed to some degree by no child left behind. The war on terror is being won and therefore it is not on everyone's radar. Republicans made America feel safe, pay less taxes, protected their gun rights, etc. What is not done is:

Health Care Reform: Republicans must stand tall and fight for Americans RIGHT to doctor choice and choice for insurance plans. Let the Dems make it universal, but make them create a plan with choice.

Defend No Child Left Behind: If Democrats try to dumb down this bill Republicans should scream bloody murder!

Education Choice: Republican should support a bill that enables all parents to choose schools that are best for their children. This can be done by requiring any state that accepts federal education funds to provide vouchers or tax credits. By presenting this as a trusting parents issue it will be a winner with families. Also, many parents will choose religious schools and this will raise up a new generation of conservatives.

Allowing parents to choose religious education is the most important things Republicans must do. Public education is making Democrats (see young vote for Obama). Only by allowing religious education on a nation scale can Republicans rebuild their base. The "moral majority" has officially become the "moral minority." Also, public education is simply poor education. If you do not believe me hand any high school student a book and ask them to read aloud, then you will know how bad our schools are.

Homosexuality is a touch issue because young people do not object to the practice. This will not change soon, and can only change if the vouchers discussed above are put in place. Republicans should stand beside marriage being between one man and one woman, but protect gays from abuse. Marriage must be protected because men and women are different and children need a mother and a father. A man cannot be a mother nor a woman a father. Republicans cannot afford to be labled homophobic which is, in the mind of young people, the new racism. P.S. don't fight it when Obama allows open gays in the military!

Judges continue to be a good issue for Republicans, and they should continue their argument for strict constructionist judges that do not make law. Democrats should be painted as undermining democracy and the voice of the people by appointing such judges.

Abortion continues to make many, many Americans straight party voters for Republicans. . . this is a good issue for conservatives. Also, conservatives are winning this argument with young people.

Immigration policies are killing us with Hispanics. Whites are now a minority, or soon will be. Without Catholic Hispanics, religious blacks, and others Republican cannot win. Republicans must become a party that welcomes immigrants. Our policies should attempt to allow white Africans to immigrate, in addition to educated immigrants. Immigrants from India should be courted as a group akin to the Jews. Indian Americans will love their homeland and by improving relations with India we will court this wealthy, soon to be powerful minority. Make controlling the boarder a security issue not an immigration issue, which means placing as much emphasis on the Canadian boarder as Mexican

These are a few ideas, and I hope someone with influence will the rambling of a mere common man.

Skiplicious| 11.5.08 @ 11:32AM

I think it's time once and for all to seperate conservatism and the GOP from being attached at the hip in political discourse.
Pro-conservative, anti-GOP should make more sense to more people at this time than ever.

Matthew H| 11.5.08 @ 11:36AM

Why do you speak of opposing Obama?

Why don't you see what he proposes, and then decide which parts you'll oppose, and which parts you won't? Why do you have to 'oppose' him simply because he has a 'D' next to his name?

Due to the horrible state of affairs in the economy, there will be little there that Obama will have a choice about. Obama will cut taxes on the median worker in order to try to stimulate the economy, same as Bush did with his refund check. Now or soon, Obama will require all businesses to offer discounted medical insurance, because the other choice is to watch trauma care cease to exist (it isn't profitable due to uninsured people getting hurt or sick). And lots of other things which aren't really choices, not if you want America to stay solvent.

If you oppose the actions Obama has to do to keep the country going, you will lose far more than you could ever hope to gain.

Gerald| 11.5.08 @ 11:37AM

"The sooner conservatives realize that Obama is not merely a gifted orator, but an incredibly talented politician with the potential to be a transformational liberal leader, the better prepared they will be to resist his agenda. In a time of economic crisis, with Democrats having overwhelming control of both chambers of Congress, stopping him will be difficult, but it won't be impossible."

I'm a liberal democrat who actually tries to understand conservatives. Why do you automatically assume that you would need to "resist" or "stop" the entire Obama agenda. Isn't there be at least the possibility for some common ground? Couldn't you bring yourselves to work in some areas alongside President Obama and the Democratic Congress. If conservatives are to be taken seriously in a future Republican party, it seems to me that less rigidity would be an important ingredient.

Patrick| 11.5.08 @ 11:46AM

This sounded quite reasonable until:

"Liberals would like for us to behave as if the September 11 attacks never happened. They portray the threat of Islamic terrorism as something the Bush administration invented -- or, at least, exaggerated -- in a cynical ploy to scare up votes. "

Outside of 9/11 truthers (who identify themselves as leftist for the most part, but should no more be included in the progressive movement than the Klan should be considered part of the conservative movement) the left does not think that terrorism is a threat that Bush made up or exaggerated. They think the threat from Iraq was one he made up or exaggerated.

There are disagreements between right and left about how to handle terrorism, but until you acknowledge some basic facts about what the dominant position on the left actually is, you will not be able to see it. The left tends to think that the proper way to deal with terrorists is through law enforcement institution, and that they way to prevent terrorism is to remove the conditions which lead to it so far as that is possible. I take it all reasonable people agree with that second clause, but disagree about which conditions lead to terrorism. The left tends to think it is a combination of poverty and past (and in some cases continued) imperialism by the West. There is a serious discussion to be had about these matters. It is a matter open for empirical investigation which side is correct in its position on terrorism. But, again, that debate cannot happen until you at least understand your opponent.

The people you are debating are a extremely small, though extremely loud, minority among the left. The rest of us think they are crazy and that you are stupid for constantly railing against them. At some point the 9/11 truthers will all get diagnosed and have prescriptions to take care of their issues. When that is done hopefully you can realize where the debate really is.

Cliff| 11.5.08 @ 11:51AM

The Republican Party has strayed too far to the right, and it has alienated fiscally conservative, socially libertarian voters. It will remain in the political wilderness as long as it considers "intelectualism" a four letter word. I agree with an earlier poster who spoke of a three party system. I see a split coming in the Republican Party--with the Christian Right being pushed to the fringe, where they belong. Socially Libertarian voters do not want religion shoved down their throats--that's an anathema to what may of us consider a foundational principal of this country: separation of church and state.

lagg| 11.5.08 @ 11:52AM

I can appreciate Tim's comments however he fails to mention the crucial issue in this election-the economy. George H W Bush tried family values-didn't work and the asssualt on Obama's character and judgment didn't work either. This is the 21st century. On 11/9/89 the wall came down and while the entire GOP only revelled in the fact the communism was no more. Well most Americans realized at that timet they were competing against the world not just Japan or Korea. Pat Buchanan warned the party in 1992 when he ran against Bush the first and the GOP did not listen. Now this election and the party is over. Trickle down economics does not work. Not when 1% of the population controls nearly 40% of the wealth. People want opportunity and only a low tax plan does not work. You have homework to do. I voted for the GOP in 5 straight presidential elections. But since 1992, I have not. Unless you appeal to more independents like me how are in the middle you are not going to win.

Jddonkey| 11.5.08 @ 11:58AM

What is the matter with you people? We're embroiled in another country's civil war, which we set off, the financial sector is a mess, and the Democratic majority didn't do that in less than two years, it was the Republicans in power for the last 28. And, Obama is a fascist? Why don't you small-minded right wingers quit calling names and come up with a real agenda and program.

Dan C.| 11.5.08 @ 12:00PM

I was taught in the Army that you conduct an honesty AAR (After Action Review). This puropse is to see what went well and what needs improvement. We as conservatives must do this on the past eight years. These 8 years set the board for this defeat. I believe what you have stated is correct. Get back to the core principle and articulate them every chance you get. We must gain our credibilty back with the american people. There's a fork in the road coming and we must convince people that ours is the correct path. We also needed to look at the larger tactical ways we ran this campaign and how the dem did it. I think we failed to go bring all weapons to the battle and next time need to be prepared and use those weapons.

Jacob| 11.5.08 @ 12:04PM

As a republican, I have to say, I've seen a lot of talk about what's going to happen to our party. And I think it's time. This defeat is what we needed. We got away from our roots. Now it's time to reflect and decide again after looking into that mirror, who we are. But I look around and all I hear is either Romney or Palin. I pray that someone with a louder voice sees this. Because I don't think that's the way we need to go. We need to see guys like Bobby Jindal, Tim Polente, Chuck Hagel, to some extent, even Ron Paul. That's the direction that i feel the republican party needs to move.

Tim| 11.5.08 @ 12:07PM

Donkey,

"Why don't you small-minded right wingers quit calling names " :) Calling names when you are calling us names will not win friends and influence people. . . instead they will think you a "donkey."

Alftrack| 11.5.08 @ 12:10PM

Philip, part of the problem why you and many others cannot figure out the authentic reasons that lead to the Obama win is that every statement you make has genesis in your dogmatic window. If you could go downstairs and talk to the people that became the electoral mass yesterday, you could realize that most of them are not capable and/or interested to follow any conservative/liberal dogmatic discussion. Surely they are interested in certain specific topics that may cause a dogmatic discussion, but most of their lives is more driven by pragmatic issues.

Tom Paine| 11.5.08 @ 12:38PM

Red State Girl --

It's weird to hear people who usually celebrate liberty celebrate bans on gay marriage.

I don't know what people are afraid of. Gay marriage does not threaten the world or the west, and it's not as newfangled as it seems.

In fact, men engaged in sworn brotherhood at church door (as marriage was once celebrated) throughout the middle ages and into the Renaissance. It was not called gay marriage, but it functionally very similar.

But this is not the point. Gay marriage doesn't hinder your ability to be happy with your husband. No one ever got a divorce because a couple of guys live together down the street.

And ultimately, these bans do limit people's liberty, their ability to choose to live life the way they see fit.

I think you should heed some of the libertarians in your midst on this one, and have a little charity.

Dan| 11.5.08 @ 12:40PM

What amazes me is how close the race actually was in terms of popular vote. I mean the republican candidates as well as their party are just plain inferior. If we bring back 10% of what the Clinton years were, our country will be an amazing success again. And for all of you Reagan worshippers- do a little research on the national debt. He invented it. There was no national debt before Regan. He and his republican decendants have destroyed this country by treating our treasury like a credit card. They create work for their cronies in order to enrich themselves. They never have had the best interests of the majority of Americans in mind. Thank god their reign of greediness and stupidity is over.

TD| 11.5.08 @ 12:42PM

If you still believe that RR was a small government politician you will never understand what needs to be done. RR increased the size of the government by every measure. Newt and Delay and W ran up deficits while increasing spending dramatically. The last small government president was Coolidge

Chad| 11.5.08 @ 12:49PM

I'm a democrat who believes we need an honest and intelligent conservative moment to debate the best way to run our government. The name calling doesn't bring anyone your way. If you truly want smaller, less intrusive government, then you need to resolve that with the republican party's desire to control women's bodies and tell people with whom they should fall in love. In other words, you need to decide on your principles and then not be hypocrites. You can't want government in our bedrooms, while at the same time wanting government to be smaller.

Tim| 11.5.08 @ 12:50PM

Republican Success
Reagan’s Vision Mostly Accomplished

Republicans are victims of their own success. The gun issue is off the table because of the courts. Taxes have been lowered, perhaps too much. . . see debt. Prescription drugs are in the hands of seniors, and they choose their plan. Schools have been reformed to some degree by no child left behind. The war on terror is being won and therefore it is not on everyone's radar screen. With the exception of Abortion, Reagan’s vision has largely been accomplished. Government is no longer considered “the problem.” Sarbanes-Oxley showed how even Republicans had to increase government power to control business (The size of global business will by necessity require larger government oversight). In addition, the bailout is also considered by the conservative President Bush to be the proper use of powerful Government. Republicans made America feel safe, pay less taxes, be secure in their gun rights, enjoy the benefits of Free trade/created the global economy (which will lift millions around the world out of poverty) (which also enables cheep good to be bought at Walmart. . . even Democrats support Free Trade now. See Peru FTA), etc. Only the Religious Right remains loyal to the Republican Brand because their issues of Abortion and Marriage have been left undone. I find it interesting that they are blamed for the party’s downfall and decline. The Religious Right is the only group in the Reagan coalition who never had their agenda accomplished. They now oddly stand out because they are the only ones left in the coalition who have reason to support the Party of Lincoln.

Here are some ideas for what the Republican Party can do while Obama is president:

Health Care Reform: Republicans must stand tall and fight for Americans RIGHT to doctor choice and choice for insurance plans. Let the Dems make it universal, but make them create a plan with choice.

Defend No Child Left Behind: If Democrats try to dumb down this bill Republicans should scream bloody murder!

Education Choice: Republican should support a bill that enables all parents to choose schools that are best for their children. This can be done by requiring any state that accepts federal education funds to provide vouchers or tax credits. By presenting this as a trusting parents issue it will be a winner with families. Also, many parents will choose religious schools and this will raise up a new generation of conservatives.

Allowing parents to choose religious education is the most important things Republicans must do. Public education is making Democrats (see young vote for Obama). Only by allowing religious education on a nation scale can Republicans rebuild their base. The "moral majority" has officially become the "moral minority." Also, public education is simply poor education. If you do not believe me hand any high school student a book and ask them to read aloud, then you will know how bad our schools are.

Homosexuality is a touchy issue because young people do not object to the practice. This will not change soon, and can only change if the vouchers discussed above are put in place. Republicans should stand beside marriage being between one man and one woman, but protect gays from abuse. Marriage must be protected because men and women are different and children need a mother and a father. A man cannot be a mother nor a woman a father. It is in the state’s interest to support traditional families for the sake of children. That said, Republicans cannot afford to be labled homophobic which is, in the mind of young people, the new racism. P.S. Don't fight it when Obama allows open gays in the military!

Judges continue to be a good issue for Republicans, and they should continue their argument for strict constructionist judges that do not make law. Democrats should be painted as undermining democracy and the voice of the people by appointing such judges.

Abortion continues to make many, many Americans straight party voters for Republicans. . . this is a good issue for conservatives. Also, conservatives are winning this argument with young people.

Republican immigration policies are killing them with Hispanics. Whites are now a minority, or soon will be. Without Catholic Hispanics, religious blacks, and others Republican cannot win. Republicans must become a party that welcomes immigrants. Our policies should attempt to allow white Africans to immigrate, in addition to educated immigrants. Immigrants from India should be courted as a group akin to the Jews. Indian Americans will love their homeland and by improving relations with India we will court this wealthy, soon to be powerful minority. Make controlling the boarder a security issue not an immigration issue, which means placing as much emphasis on the Canadian boarder as Mexican

These are a few ideas, and I hope someone with influence will listen to the ramblings of a mere common man.

Susan| 11.5.08 @ 12:54PM

It's time for all conservatives to stay vigilant about the Obama administration and to speak up. We must get involved. We can no longer assume that common sense and core values will prevail in this country as a whole. Take action or we will lose our freedom. Follow the news, write your representatives, write editorials, flood the internet with your views, speak up at work, call conservative organizations and volunteer your time and donate in preparation for the next election.

JK| 11.5.08 @ 12:56PM

It's time for a re-evaluation. The Conservative Movement must be re-intellectualized. It must become again a movement of ideas and action, not a movement of stale ideology and fear.
What does strong on defense mean?
What makes the nation strong?
What separates the conservative from the liberal, and how does that separation create differences in policy that are effective for the American people?
What is different today that necessitates the conservative movement? In the beginning of Ronald Reagan's presidency, the top marginal tax rate was 90%. Philosophy based on lowering a 90% tax rate may not be the correct philosophy when considering a top tax rate of 40%.
What drives business, the market, and trade?
How can we regulate in ways that prevent or mitigate the sort of problems affecting our market now without stifling the growth of business?

In the end, I think both parties would be best to ignore their radicals and move to the center...where the rest of the country is.

bwd| 11.5.08 @ 1:05PM

The bottom line is that conservatives will always think that government is a necessary evil and few will see the real need to even deal with it. But we cannot forget that if we leave it to those who love it (liberals), then we conservatives will lose our ability or willingness to even think conservative thoughts. "Let us not grow tired of doing good, for in the end we shall reap a harvest"

Jeff Wagner| 11.5.08 @ 1:06PM

After eight years of The. Worst. President.Ever. -- after the attacks on Gay rights -- after the Terri Schiavo stupidity -- after the invasion of Iraq and the lost trail of Osama bin Laden -- you're wondering why people want change?

I no longer recognize the Republican party of my youth -- moderate on religion, suspicious of mass stupidity ("Joe the Plumber" would not have made it past my parlor), for strong individual rights.

You must cast the Thumpers out into their own party or continue your decline into what now seems to be devoted to the dumbest elements in American civilization.

MythBuster| 11.5.08 @ 1:07PM

I'm not surprised to see how this blog veered away from the topics of this article after the first letter or two. It's like these people are paid to come into truly conservative publications in an attempt to destroy the spirits of them who believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The big picture here is that we just went through a financial cycle that produced tremendous wealth, perhaps the biggest ever. How else could we have funded the third world war while being able to fork over $700 billion to people who don't deserve it? Sheesh. My income doubled during Dubya's administration. And I'm just a 48 year old auto mechanic. Of course we're experiencing a market correction of unprecedented stature.

Don't underestimate the ability of conservatism to make the average guy better off. And don't underestimated the trampling of John & Sarah's First Amendment rights in this election. The popular vote was just that close. Had McCain been conservative enough to vote No on the bailout, he might be the President-Elect today.

PD| 11.5.08 @ 1:13PM

You all need to get a grip. " Conservatives (need to articulate) why liberal proposals will have disastrous implications, and emphasizing that there is little room left to expand social programs when the government has to fund a $700 billion bailout" ... whose bailout is this? W's. What we need is smart government and all of this pissing about liberal values is just that. Susan needs to check her facts. If she were to compare divorce rates between red and blue states, she might question her belief that "liberal" values increase the cost of government.

Dan| 11.5.08 @ 1:17PM

The author of this article is missing the point. Maybe conservatism can rise again, but its obviously not wanted now. Let it die to be reborn when it's time is more appropriate. This country needs to be completely reformed and re-evaluated. To get ourselves out of the current mess we need dramatic change to take place.

We just voted in a relatively radical extremely inexperienced young intelligent democrat. Obviously the people of this country want the establishment re-evaluated and re-written. Look around - it is not the time for conservatism.

And honestly we need to stop talking about wedge issues involving people's personal beliefs. Do you really think that gay marriage should at all be on our list of priorities (one way or the other). Less than 5% of the population is gay. Who cares!? Bigger fish!! Society wouldnt notice if every gay couple in the US married tomorrow (except that they'd pull in more taxes). Your kids should feel okay about gay people- what if they are gay? They're not gonna hurt you so drop it! Lets focus on real issues like getting this economy back to the way it ran during the Clinton years.

HC| 11.5.08 @ 1:19PM

The danger is the U.S. economy becoming Europeanized - low growth and government funded social services.?

The only reason the U.S. economy was able to grow faster than Europe's was because of reckless borrowing and spending. This couldn't last, and now the economy is in crisis.

So the danger of Europeanization is that the U.S. economy will grow at a sustainable rate and the government will provide decent social services for all its citizens?

The horror!

Chris Boulanger| 11.5.08 @ 1:23PM

I am a card-carrying ACLU member, entrepreneur, African American & Democrat. I voted for Barack Obama and believe it was the right choice.

That said, I do believe there is a need for conservatism (at least of the economic variety) in America. Over the next 4 years, I think the Republican Party and the conservative movement should focus on being the voice for the thoughtful and results-oriented use of our deficit-yoked budget.

I believe that we need more government spending, especially on infrastructure, energy and scientific research. We also would benefit from the rationalizing of healthcare. With these issues in mind, I vote Democrat. BUT I know that when power is concentrated in any political party, abuse and overreaching will occur.

Conservatives will only further alienate themselves from America by standing around and pointing fingers at 'liberals' and 'corporate socialists'. Instead, I propose you put your substantial energies toward ensuring that Dems don't blindly throw money at bad social programs or undermine long-term growth by being overzealous in their pursuit of pro-labor policy.

Our country needs a lot of work and I believe Barack Obama is best suited to start that work. For conservatives, the goal should be to temper Democrat (and citizen) exuberance for change with credible and consistent commentary on the costs/benefits of Democrat policies.

To sum up, conservatives need to free themselves from the greedy, haphazard approach to government of Bush and McCain's campaign and focus on making government as lean as possible within the socially-oriented agenda the Democrats will most likely push. --Don't just try to be a wrench in the system, be a mechanic or engineer that helps it run better.

Greg Gregory| 11.5.08 @ 1:27PM

The Republican Party is dead to me. The socially conservative wing heaped scorn on an honorable John McCain in 2000, and helped elect a dumbass who gave us a huge government in return for a few social conservative friendly faces on SCOTUS. And the SCs followed that up by heaping more scorn on McCain this time around.

I voted for Obama because I think that the entire political discourse of things like the proper role of government and levels of taxation can now be more profitably had within the Democratic party. The static and the noise brought to you by the social conservatives has rendered the Republican party inoperable for hosting such a discourse. The last 8 years is my proof. Indeed - if Republicans backed by social "compassionate" conservatives give us huge government, then I'll vote Democrat only because at least they do big government right, and not in an ad-hoc "AIG wins, Lehman loses" fashion. And I will not vote Republican until the SC's are kicked out and/or suitable punished for the disaster they have visited on us, and in the meantime I will support centrist Democratic candidates locally.

And by the way, criticizing McCain over statements he made about executive pay and wall street greed doesn't gain much traction when CEOs DO IN FACT make too much money, way out of all proportion to services rendered; and when wall street wizards concoct financial instruments of which not even their number-crunching PhD mathematicians, economists and physicists understand the risks, to the tune of $700 billion dollars and counting. I'd say "Wall Street Greed" is a pretty tame moniker, how about "Money Whoring Retirement Killers"?

Part of having a practical conservative philosophy is knowing when to reign in your own excesses. And if you're a conservative pundit (or any average Joe) slaving to make $50,000 a year, and you find yourself cheering for and lending cover to billionaires who rake in millions for sitting on their hindquarters while the rest of us lost our retirement savings, I'd say you found one of those philosophical excesses.

In the meantime, think locally and vote for centrist Democrats!

Andre| 11.5.08 @ 1:33PM

Liberalism always wins in the end; if it didn't, we'd still be living in an America where, for example, blacks and women couldn't vote, and abortion would be illegal. If the Republican party wants to survive, it's going to have to abandon the social issues, and define itself as offering a small government alternative to the Democrats. If they do this, they will offer a compelling "brand" to America-- they can sell it as rugged individualism. Reduce the size of government ("you can do it yourself"), reduce the tax burden ("here's the money for you to do it yourself", and leave moral issues to individuals ("the government shouldn't legislate morals").

The problem: that looks a lot like the libertarian philosophy rather than Republican philosophy. It also will be tough to convince Americans that Republicans will be the party of small government given it's history over the past 28 years.

mike| 11.5.08 @ 1:41PM

I'm a happy and proud Obama supporter and generally dependable democrat. Here's my advice to the Republican party... Go back to Eisenhower. Get back to meat and potatoes basics of running the country in the most efficient and unobtrusive way. Ditch all the religious/values talk (please!) And definitely ditch the us-against-them rhetoric. Do those things and you will re-invigorate your party with millions of new members, very possibly including myself.

Or you can stay on your current course and blame everyone but yourself for your rapidly dwindling appeal.

Harold Longtree| 11.5.08 @ 1:43PM

Let's examine the GOP's interest in small government and see if anything is really going to change.

Massive defense spending for national security. Check.

Massive farm subsidies for the reliable base in the heartland. Check.

Massive subsidies oil and coal while ignoring the environment. Check that one twice.

Insistance on the rich not paying taxes despite the GOP running up huge deficits that must be paid for by somebody. Check.

Pandering to the religous right. Check.

Staying a white party and losing a major portion of the minority vote because you refuse to represent all Americans. Check.

I don't see any changes coming. Evaluate the party all you want. Examine and re-examine and then run Sarah Palin in 2012 and do the same thing all over again.

If American was truly a center right country, the vote would have been 51-49. It is a center center country and the ideology will always trump rational thought in the GOP. Hope for a terrorist attack. USA! USA! USA!

ETF| 11.5.08 @ 1:46PM

Reading all of this psychotic gibberish, the morning after the election, makes it abundantly clear why the so-called "conservatives" have finally, after 28 years of driving the United States to financial, moral, and intellectual ruin, been kicked out on their collective asses.

Yours is a movement of small-minded, provincial, greedy, self-centered dimwits. Just read the very first comment to this article ... the author of which plainly is in desperate need of a lobotomy.

Finally, after you've looted the treasury, picked the pockets of the poor, and reduced the intelligence level of the national discourse to baboon-like levels, our citizens are seeing through your lies.

Your coalition of the mean, the greedy, the intolerant, and the psychotic Christians is going to have the same amount of influence in American politics from now on as paranoid schizophrenics currently do ... appropriately enough, because that is what you *are*. That is *all* you are. You do not constitute any kind of serious political position.

Keep dreaming that your "movement" is going to rise again. That "movement" has just been flushed down the toilet ... forever.

Good riddance, psychos.

Freedom Fan| 11.5.08 @ 1:49PM

"Liberalism always wins in the end."

No actually free market economics and free people always win in the end.

Republicans led by Lincoln freed the slaves and Democrats led by George Wallace stood in schoolhouse doors during the civil rights movement.

Today NARAL and Liberals like Obama oppose medical efforts at saving an infant born alive.

Obama and Comfort Rooms

So much for Democrats being the party for human rights. The Obama victory is a temporary anomaly.

shiloh| 11.5.08 @ 1:49PM

Paraphrasing that great American sage and philosopher, Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright. All the republican chickens have come home to roost!

take care, blessings ...

Alan| 11.5.08 @ 1:57PM

Absolutely. Now is the time to unite, to speak truth to the American people. They need to know the real Barack Obama. I can't believe people aren't hearing it. So here goes:

The TRUTH is that Obama is a secret Russian spy dictator who, when he was 40, joined Stalin in creating a dictatorship. (Obama is actually 100 years old, but did the liberal media elites report that? No!). His first secret plan is to repeal the Bill of Rights, and his second secret plan is to declare war on Greenland and Kansas. He will seize all our guns and sell them to the lowest bidder. And the media also failed to report the so called "Obama Crescent" bill, H.R. 3324, which will make it illegal not to be a Muslim.

The Truth! As if anybody reading this website knew the first thing about it...

Greg Gregory| 11.5.08 @ 1:57PM

Hear, hear, Andre!

Social conservatives started this process by banishing the center from the Republican Party, let's finish it by leaving the social conservatives. While I think it is more plausible to build a centrist opposition within the Democratic Party; it may make sense to rescue the Libertarian party from the oddballs who now dominate there. (Maybe a Libertarian litmus test? Like if you believe that banks have to honor handwritten checks drawn on scraps of paper, that building roads is an improper function of government, or if you know what the term "posse comitatus" means, then you should be disallowed from the Libertarian party.)

And no kudos for Tim above, your lame attempt at keeping the marriage of convenience together between SCs and moderate former Republicans like myself. Your recommendations about quietly accepting homosexuality in spite of it, promoting school choice for the benefit of educating future republicans in religious schools, etc ring hollow. For one thing, this former Republican and proud family man DOES believe in full rights for homosexuals. And I wouldn't send my kid to a religious school if you paid me!

You know what? I have an idea: Let reasonable people argue about government and taxation within the Democratic party, and let all the people who read documents written by Hebrews over 2000 years ago as having special significance to current events join those in the Libertarian party who read the constitution as forbidding the US Military from basing troops within the US. They should be right at home there.

shiloh| 11.5.08 @ 1:59PM

"Republicans led by Lincoln freed the slaves and Democrats led by George Wallace stood in schoolhouse doors during the civil rights movement. "

And a democratic president, LBJ, signed the civil rights bills of 1964/1965. LBJ, being an astute politician, knew he was giving the South to the republicans for several generations to come, because of the racism and bigotry of southern republicans and yes, democrats too.

p.s. How about Virginia and N. Carolina :) not your "grandmothers" South anymore, eh ...

take care, blessings

Yah Way (R)| 11.5.08 @ 2:03PM

It does not matter anyway. There is no time to examine anything.

Just like they say, Obama is a Muslim terrorist who has tricked us with his powers over the people. He is a pawn of the devil and will destroy this country just after he destroys Israel and makes the Almighty mad who will then destroy the world itself. It was the liberals who done it.

Sean Hannity tried to save us. But he is only one man and no match for an anti-Christ.

MD in nashville| 11.5.08 @ 2:08PM

Reading these comments, I, as an Obama supporter, am quite confident that the Republican Party is indeed in dire straits. If only this weren't the lunatic fringe, for then I would be confident of Democratic Hegemony for the remainder of my young children's lives.

shiloh| 11.5.08 @ 2:08PM

Susan said ...

"It's time for all conservatives to stay vigilant about the Obama administration and to speak up. We must get involved. We can no longer assume that common sense and core values will prevail in this country as a whole. Take action or we will lose our freedom. Follow the news, write your representatives, write editorials, flood the internet with your views, speak up at work, call conservative organizations and volunteer your time and donate in preparation for the next election."

Yes Susan, be afraid, be very afraid! Conservative "one trick ponyies" never fail to disappoint!

take care, blessings

Greg Gregory| 11.5.08 @ 2:13PM

Hey ETF:

"Yours is a movement of small-minded, provincial, greedy, self-centered dimwits. Just read the very first comment to this article ... the author of which plainly is in desperate need of a lobotomy. Finally, after you've looted the treasury, picked the pockets of the poor, and reduced the intelligence level of the national discourse to baboon-like levels, our citizens are seeing through your lies. "

Agreed on the need to revile mightily the social conservatives who have wrecked the Republican Party.

But what's wrong with ordinary people working hard and keeping what they **earn** (and not leverage from somebody else based on arcanities) without having the government confiscate it from them and give it to somebody else or tell them what they can do with it? These are the arguments that refugees from the Republican party are going to be bringing to a Democratic primary near you - congratulations!

But really, you're not helping by tarring all Republican voters (especially the disappointed ones) with the same brush properly reserved for social conservatives. I gleefully join you in my unending scorn for them. Hopefully the tough economic times will last long enough to plow a few more fundi churches under, and turn a few megachurches into large empty batcaves. Here's a proposal we can agree on with the Democrats: take away the tax-exempt status of churches.

Is it sinking in yet, SC's? You lost big time.

MIke| 11.5.08 @ 2:16PM

Folks,

I started my adult voting life in the early 1990s as a GOP moderate, the type that has been drummed out of the party.

The Republicans won't have me back until they reclaim their party from the social conservative religious whackjobs who hijacked the ship and sent it careening into the rocks.

I still by and large believe in strong defense and limited taxation; but I cannot cast my vote for the party of anti-intellectual wing nuts. Until you come to grips with this, you're going to have more election nights like last night.

stmsfo| 11.5.08 @ 2:25PM

To fix the Republican party, I'd like to start by throwing out all the folks who have made the word "Republican" synonymous with the word "stupid". Starting with Karl Rove.

Bob| 11.5.08 @ 2:30PM

Wow... I thought I was alone in the wilderness but there are lots of you who are moderate Republicans who see the takeover the party by social conservatives as a death knell. There are a number of policies that have ruined the conservative aspects of our party by the extreme right religious zealots. First of all, by nature, social conservatives are interventionists. They want to tell me how to live my live. And they wanted to tell Iraq's people how to live their lives as well. Secondly, they want the government to pay for their child's religious education through vouchers. That is not conservative. The believe that God will take care of the environment no matter what we do. We also need to protect Israel so the messiah can come and kill all of the Jews. They won't support a Mormon for president even though he would have been the best for the economy. Their rigid stance on abortion means we can't put a pro-choice conservative like Ridge on the ballot. As several here have said, the social conservatives need to go. I've been a Republican for over 40 years and I won't vote for another Republican for president until he kicks the social conservative platforms out of the party, separates church and state, and becomes more libertarian like Goldwater. So there.....

ReturnFreeRisk| 11.5.08 @ 2:34PM

GOP now has ZERO reps in New England and is now a regional party.

The party of the educated with their think tanks now gives us intellectually challenged candidates like W, Dan Quayle and of course Gov. Palin who is the authority on who is a real American.

Stop with the hateful devisive politics, stop infuriating 3/4 of the country by telling them they are not "real Americans" (surprise - we take this shit seriously).
Don't bother asking for my vote until the social conservatives are either muzzled or thrown out and until you stop waging your war on intellectualism. love McCain, hate the party.

Freedom Fan| 11.5.08 @ 2:41PM

The Conservative movement has plenty of room for both fiscally responsible and religious folks.

Certainly there must be some compromises, but anyone who suggests splitting the coalition is just trying to undermine us.

Our guiding principles must always be to promote freedom and individual responsibility as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

True I think everyone should read Saul Alinsky to learn what Obama and his socialist buddies are doing to us and discover how they think. We must quickly grasp the assault on property rights and basic freedoms which they are planning to oppress by deceit.

Let us understand, but let us never embrace Alinsky's morally bankrupt Rules for Radicals as our own tactics.

Greg Gregory| 11.5.08 @ 2:44PM

Susan said ...

"It's time for all conservatives to stay vigilant about the Obama administration and to speak up. We must get involved. We can no longer assume that common sense and core values will prevail in this country as a whole. Take action or we will lose our freedom. Follow the news, write your representatives, write editorials, flood the internet with your views, speak up at work, call conservative organizations and volunteer your time and donate in preparation for the next election."

Agreed. And I will do it from within the confines of the Democratic party, in the primaries and in the newspapers and in correspondence, because as liberal and far left as you imagine Obama to be, he and his party are far more open to discussion, compromise and moving forward than are a bunch of wretched social conservative losers who can't see beyond the end of their leviticus, and drove the center from the Republican party.

This is so cathartic - I can say everything that I have been holding in peace for the last 8 years. You SCs nominated and elected a moron in 2000 by tarnishing the reputation of an honorable centrist, John McCain. Hoping for smaller government and lower taxes, we instead got a huge increase in the scope of government, expensive government programs, domestic spying, inept wars, and the list goes on and on. And you followed it up by heaping more scorn on and helping to defeat with your faint support: John McCain. There are no words for your malfeasance and short sightedness. No words.

For example, I can say this now: I am not a homosexual, but I support full rights for homosexuals. And just to stick it in your eye, I now favor calling homosexual unions "marriage".

I can also say this: As far as we know, the universe was created in a Big Bang. Life evolved on earth into its present form under the mechanism of natural selection. Any educator who says otherwise is grossly inept.

And this: I support that parents should be given greater choice in sending their kids to a good school. I do not support any voucher system or any other funding mechanism that would send taxpayer money to a religious institutions. Vouchers, fine; but not for religious schools.

You see how this works? I used to hold my peace on such issues for the sake of smaller government. But you SCs spurned me and others like me on that point, delivered us into the hands of the most inept American government ever, tossed dirt on an honorable war hero, and now I am free. Barack Obama freed me last night, and now I and others like me will go over to the Democratic party, see what we can get done there to limit the scope of government and have a voice, (I am optimistic given the character of the man WE helped elect president last night,) and when the time comes to compromise, I will now be lining up against you.

In fact, I will be writing to my senator tonight to propose legislation that would require all tax-exempt organizations that perform marriages on their property to open said property to all legally recognized marriages. I think that's only fair - tax exempt organizations have to serve the public in some way - what better way than to start following the public laws?

I hope SCs are beginning to feel alone.

Awed| 11.5.08 @ 2:49PM

I am in awe that Obama won, and I am equally awed to see the conservatism that I have come to admire and respect reflected, and reflecting here.

You guys have big troubles. We need a 20th century mindset that will get us through the next hundred years. We face tremendous challenges. To those who fear Obama, he may blunder. I feared Bush in 2000 and honestly I usually love being right but not this time. Obama also has the capacity to also rise to the occasion. We shall see.

But you guys must rise to your own occasion. Liberals cannot make and remake this country alone. There have always been tensions between us and there have been great ideas and great leadership on both sides. I personally thought the first Bush was a pretty decent president. I gave him my first vote. My favorite president is Eisenhower. I hope you will figure out who you want to be in this century instead of living in the past. Good luck guys. The country needs you, but not as you are right now.

Tom K| 11.5.08 @ 2:53PM

Obama is right, change is coming.....more change than he plans for.....more than he and secular liberals want.....America is being socially engineered and as conservative hispanics move into the suburbs and rural areas, inter-marry with whites, the face of America will change. It will take a few election cycles....but what are the Democrats gonna do when they wake up to a racially integrated America? What are Dems gonna do when they can no longer play the race card because they have no race to patronize and demonize? What are Dems gonna do when the Republicans nominate a non-white candidate like Bobby Jindal; fiscally conservative, socially conservative, pragmatic and attractive? What are Dems gonna do when hispanics become the majority and re-charge America with the good old family values (i.e. men with balls, women with modesty) that made this country great for 200 years? What are Dems gonna do when the lies of political correctness, moral relativism and big government are exposed and the American people hunger for an identity, a backbone, something to stand for. Yes, change is coming.....

Greg Gregory| 11.5.08 @ 2:57PM

Freedom Fan said...

"The Conservative movement has plenty of room for both fiscally responsible and religious folks. "

Nope. Not anymore. This "fiscally responsible" former booster of the Republican Party doesn't see it that way. Not after the way you treated John McCain.

Oh, am I suppose to "not care" because the man was not "fiscally responsible" enough? I've got news for you: John McCain, Democrats, drunken sailors, and compulsive gamblers are all more fiscally responsible than George W. Bush.

Much has been made in this thread about social conservatives promoting candidates who are, ah, conspicuously lacking in the intellectual areas. I think there's a connection there.

Jeff| 11.5.08 @ 3:07PM

Are we done with the New Tone and reaching out to moderates. It doesn't work.

Richard B | 11.5.08 @ 3:08PM

To me this election is a pivotal moment in history showing conservatism is an abject failure. The problem is more to do with Social Conservatism growing the government to protect institutions rather than keep government off our backs. This includes the immigration and culture debates, even thought there can be winning issues as how marriage has become a mainstream issue. I feel we need to replace conservatism with and idea that is founded on Individualism, laissez-faire capitalism and limited government.

Greg Gregory| 11.5.08 @ 3:17PM

Yes, Jeff. We are done with the "New Tone". We fiscal conservatives aren't enthralled any longer.

Greg Gregory| 11.5.08 @ 3:21PM

On reviewing some of these comments, I congratulate Tim for this chestnut: "Republicans are victims of their own success. "

Someone please tell Tim that the Republicans weren't TRYING to commit suicide this election cycle, appearances to the contrary.

brob| 11.5.08 @ 3:29PM

I think the author's analysis makes a fundamental mistake. It ignores the candidate's own words and assumes that President-elect Obama was not being truthful about his philosophy during the campaign. Your analysis labels Obama a "liberal" and based on the label presumes an approach to public policy that is not in accord with those espoused by the candidate himself. Had the author bothered to listen to the candidate's campaign speeches, especially those in the last week, he might have realized that his arguments are going to have a difficult time gaining traction against centrist governance. I would further suggest that it would be a significant error to presume that the public voted against the incumbent and not for the candidate. There was, in my opinion, a little of both but mostly the later. Compromise is going to be necessary on both sides and any perceived attempt to stick with conservative or liberal dogma is likely going to prove costly to the proponent when next at the polls.

TXJim| 11.5.08 @ 3:36PM

In a few words.. Tom K .. you and the people like you are idiots.. Everything you said was so far off from reality that I'm unsure of how you even believe it.
----

Tom K | 11.5.08 @ 1:53PM

Obama is right, change is coming.....more change than he plans for.....more than he and secular liberals want.....America is being socially engineered and as conservative hispanics move into the suburbs and rural areas, inter-marry with whites, the face of America will change.

No Tom its happening now and those people voted for Obama. This is the election cycle where it happened and they voted for change.

It will take a few election cycles....but what are the Democrats gonna do when they wake up to a racially integrated America?

Tom just in case you forgot, or missed the victory speech last night, the 125,000 were a racially integrated group, cheering anc celebrating.. The McCain/Palin rallies? As white as snow, violence-baiting, and angry.

What are Dems gonna do when they can no longer play the race card because they have no race to patronize and demonize? What are Dems gonna do when the Republicans nominate a non-white candidate like Bobby Jindal; fiscally conservative, socially conservative, pragmatic and attractive?

Too many people who hate non-whites in the republican party to attract non-whites in high numbers. Not to mention you already had qualified Blacks such as Colin and Condi who you could have ran more successfully against the Dems if being non-white is all it takes to win.

What are Dems gonna do when hispanics become the majority and re-charge America with the good old family values (i.e. men with balls, women with modesty) that made this country great for 200 years?

Based on how they voted for Obama 2-1 it looks like they will beat the Repubs even worse than now.

What are Dems gonna do when the lies of political correctness, moral relativism and big government are exposed and the American people hunger for an identity, a backbone, something to stand for. Yes, change is coming.....

We who voted for Obama do have an identity.. We are Americans, not red or blue states.. Demos or Repubs... Liberals or Conservatives.. its people like you who are dying a slow death..

They said it would be a cold day in hell before America elected a Black man for president..

Well to all you haters, bundle up!!!

GiNFiZ| 11.5.08 @ 3:42PM

Completely agree with Bogey. What Klein (aptly named) called 'Reagan Conservatism' is a hybrid freak of history combining Wall Street Welfare Bums, Flat Earth Believers, Mossad Agents and Defense Industry parasites. Eisenhower must be turning in his grave.
At least, Reagan did have the Soviet Threat to justify putting together his 'big tent coalition' of Fiscal and Social Conservatives and Foreign Policy Hawks. That was a REAL threat.
Sorry, Klein, but Osama Bin Loaded and his paper cutter-wielding/ goat-herding wackos are definitely not in the same league. They're CRIMINALS and should have been treated as such, that's it. Over-militarizing the anti-terrorist fight only made us look like a nation of Cold War Hacks trying to recreate another enemy 'bloc' Muslim, this time.

Tom Paine| 11.5.08 @ 3:48PM

Republicans --

This is the best thread I've read yet. Mike et al are offering you good counsel.

The Republican party that will win is NOT the party of Palin's rallies, where Obama was denounced as a terrorist.

The Republican party (and McCain is it's finest example) will be a contender again when it goes back to Eisenhower and T. Roosevelt -- moderation and a definite concern with the well being of working people.

The party that wins is the party of ideas. The ideas only matter if you nominate leaders that can articulate them and teach them to the American people.

The proudly, willfully ignorant in your midst, the arrogant non-newspaper reading ignoramuses who PRIDE themselves on not knowing anything about science and BRAG that they don't read -- these are the people who are dragging you down.

In the end, Obama won because he sounds like a college professor when he talks. Clear, sober, rational, cautious, curious, and capable of listening to others -- these are the characteristics people look for in their leaders in times of great crisis.

If you nominate another W -- like Palin -- you'll keep losing. (Frankly, I'm counting on it.)

Tundrapat| 11.5.08 @ 3:56PM

Interesting comments - in fact, more interesting than the original article. Alright, I'll start with the disclosure of the fact that I am an unabashed moderate-liberal, long-time Democrat.

Having said that, here's an 'outsiders view' of the GOP and conservatism. First and foremost - the two are no longer by ANY means synonymous. The GOP has recently taken up much more of a social conservatism, akin to fascism (yes, that adjective is bandied about far too much, but if one looks up the definition, it applies here). The 'conservatism' of the GOP, which formed the true moral soul of the party in my grandfather's day, is gone. I used to view the GOP much like I view McCain - disagree with many policies, sure, but respect the attitude and recognize the value of that 'core belief'.

That is certainly not the case anymore. The GOP has lurched over to become the property of the religious right, and that zealotry turns people off. Moderate, fiscal conservatives are a dying breed (hello, Susan Collins - somehow I think you'll be joining Lieberman and McCain in either ditching the party or repeatedly crossing lines).

It also doesn't help that the old GOP line of 'cut taxes and shrink government' has only ever produced the 'cut taxes (primarily for the wealthy)' part. Leading to massive foreign-funded debt for future generations to deal with.

That, to me, is not responsible fiscal policy. That's credit card conservatism.

Anyhow, I could go on, but that's enough for now. There is obviously a reason that the Democratic Party now boasts fiscally conservative members, members who fervently support the rights of gun owners, etc.

I wish you luck in taking back your party and your brand. I may not agree with it, but perhaps I can respect it again at some future point.

toritto| 11.5.08 @ 3:59PM

The GOP has come to this - it is now the party of rural, older less educated white people. Want to rebuild the GOP? Start with this: 1. We will defend the United States and the Constitution against all enemies. 2. We will be prudent stewards of your money and will control spending. 3. We will not tell you how to live your life. 4. All are welcome in our tent. The party needs to marginalize extreme right wingers, neo-fascists and the waiting for the rapture crowd. Americans will respond to a true center-right coalition. The GOP needs to return to its fiscally conservative, socially moderate roots. Republicanism needs to define what it is FOR; calling the opposition names ain't gonna cut it as policy anymore. It will not be easy to accomplish. Already I've heard right wingers blaming the loss on "not being conservative enough". Making the Party smaller, more rural, more uneducated and more white ain't gonna win elections. Take a look at the new faces of America.

Zhang Guotao| 11.5.08 @ 4:05PM

Klein wrote:
Not since Reagan's landslide in 1980 will there be a better time for conservatives to make the case for a smaller government with limited functions.

It was interesting watching the Republican Party make just this case all through the Clinton years--we've got to balance the budget! we've got to balance the budget!! they all screamed. This they used as a mantra to keep the Democrats from developing education programs and after school programs that would both help the country and improve their chances at the polls. Every Republican in the House and Senate voted against the Clinton budget that led to eight years of a strong economy.

Then (who knew?) as soon as the Republicans took over under Bush they all claimed that balanced budgets were passe and irrelevant. Overnight the Republican Party changed from fiscal conservatives to supply-siders who didn't care about balanced budgets as long as the rich got tax cuts.

Now, as Obama becomes the next president, the Republicans are going to become fiscally conservative again calling for huge cutbacks on education and assistance to the poor. What a shock!!

Can't wait to see the Republicans support Obama's control over wire taps and secret meetings in the VPs office they all claimed were legal. Hope that anti-filibuster agreement is still in tact for Supreme Court votes.

carl| 11.5.08 @ 4:05PM

Common sense and core values prevailed in America last night. A majority of Americans have have said, "enough is enough" and moved our country to the left.

The truth of the matter is that the liberal movement is responsible for all of the historical social growth that the right holds out to the world as sources for American achievements and pride. From the end of slavery to women's sufferage and worker's rights, conservatives have always struggled, complained and resisted making the changes that matter to people the most. But despite this resistance, change always comes.

Conservatives are always afraid of change and must be dragged, kicking and screaming into the world of doing the right things. Many of the people (women, blacks, men who were not white, etal) who voted last night would not have been able t0 vote at all were it not for liberalism.

The people have spoken. We have work to do. It's time for change. And in 100 years, the liberal changes we adopt today will be embraced by your grandchildren as "conservative values."

Congratulate President Obama.
Change has come to America.

Bill| 11.5.08 @ 4:06PM

First off my new annoying protest chant is going to be: "Obama lied, my tax cut died"

I'll be using just as soon as Obama raises my taxes, which will be around January14, 2008.

Ok, lets not take democratic incompetence for granted anymore. The good news is, I believe that we have hit rock bottom and there is nowhere to go but up. The bad news is we have fight on our hands. We have to stop a socialist/fascist agenda and rebuild our party. It's time to throw out our RINOs, and begin to court libertarians. The GOP should be a libertarian party with real conservative values like those from 1994. We need leadership, so I say get back to our roots with Newt Gingrich and Rudy Guiliani, while begin preparing for the new generation in Sarah Palin, Charlie Crist, Michael Steele, and Mitt Romney.

Obama is joke. He's a Chicago machine politican who never held a real job in his life until last night. However that's what also makes him dangerous. We have a democratic Congress with an approval rating of just 11%. None of the country's problems will be solved in the next 24 months and because of a full democratic dictatorship, we can take back Congress and set up a good candidate for 2012. The Dems can't play this blame Bush anymore since they run the government with a huge majority. They now actually have to come up with real ideas that middle Americans like, and they can't do it.

But the future of our party is in the Libertarians and in the Goldwater, Reagan and Gingrich conservatives.

So now that we know what to do, lets do it!!!!

Tim| 11.5.08 @ 4:11PM

Greg,

I can see you are a little angry at Social Conservatives. As a social conservative, let me remind you of a few things. All we are fighting for is that you and others live. We want babies, elderly, and the disabled to experience life. . . sorry that angers you so much. We want to obey God and take care of the environment. This nonsense about us not caring about the environment because of the end times is laughable. Warning, when people who do not read their Bible try to tell others what Bible readers do believe they are prone to error. . . don’t believe them. The Bible supports taking care of the environment while also using nature to meet the needs of mankind, and this balance plays well in the electorate. Christians want kids to grow up in families with both a mother and a father whose relationship is secured in marriage. Sorry that angers so many. Christians long and pray for justice for victims of crime, even supporting the death penalty for murderers (Catholics excepted, though they do desire justice through prison:). Christians wish to support the poor and donate millions of dollars for that purpose each year. The Red Cross and the SBC disaster relief are major players in the relief of people after catastrophe. Christians are and have been a major force for good in our country, and we are not going anywhere.

In fact, social conservatives make up about a third of the nation. Republicans need to add to the coalition, but it can and will be done. Even California supports traditional marriage! Every time there has been a vote on the issue the nation agrees with social conservatives on marriage. Only courts making law enable gay marriage to even be an issue. Why do you not blame liberal judges for dividing us? What every happened to a government of the people and by the people. Democratic judges have very little faith in people.

As long as we have had recorded history there have been a people preaching and teaching out of some portion of the Bible. Christians have survived the brutality of Rome, persecution of a state church during the reformation, and even Muslim aggression. We do not go away, and will never go away. Why? God is with us and our message. No other people or book (the Bible) can make such a historical boast. Also, the Catholics are fast moving toward the SCs. This will give us at least a third of the Hispanic vote, and if we are wise perhaps more. You can hate us all you want, but we have always been and will always be.

p.s. If we have survived the events listed above, I think we can survive Barak Obama being president of the United States.

Jody| 11.5.08 @ 4:16PM

With defeat comes wisdom. Conservatives must cultivate young local leadership if it expects to survive the long winter. We also must dispense quickly with radical spokesmen of whom the liberal media can easily build a strawman attack against. Quietly rebuild and wait, my friends. This has happened before. The conservative movement survived Wilson, and Roosevelt, Johnson, Carter and Clinton. There was only one Republican left in the Senate early in the Roosevelt administration. Four years of Obama overreaching, pandering, and struggling to control the radical wing of his party, and the opportunistic Clinton wing will present ample opportunity to over-protest but our time will come with slow and disciplined agenda. Remember, Gingrich became the speaker? The talking heads were predicted the end of the Democratic Party. Endeavor to persevere.

Mark| 11.5.08 @ 4:20PM

I disagree with Mr. Klein. Mr. Obama is not a talented politician, he is talented self promoter. A talented Politian enacts changes or moves policies toward an end. As of today, Mr. Obama has not much of a Politian. He has few accomplishments in as Politian. Mr. Obama may become talented politician. Today all Mr. Obama is a talented speaker and self promoter. I hope is better president than think he will be.

Bingo| 11.5.08 @ 4:21PM

Not all Republicans want small government. Social conservatives drool over the idea of using it as an enforcement tool against gays, pro-choicers, and all their other boogiemen.

Laissez-faire capitalists apparently want big government only seasonally, to bail them out whenever their ineptitude or recklessness sends them into a ditch. Privatize the gains! Socialize the losses!

Neocons love a big government, because you can't go to war with a small one. We all know that you've got to go to war if you want Dad to respect you.

I hope you guys figure out how to right yourselves, because we can't have a one-party system.

However, until you come up with a small-government platform, show that it makes sense, and stick to it, you're not going anywhere.

Bob| 11.5.08 @ 4:32PM

Tim, yes, you are the problem with the Republican party. First of all, you are only a little over 20% of the voters. You don't really support life or you wouldn't support optional wars. You provide no solutions for the poor and sick in this country. You should be supporting national healthcare as a right if you really believed in the bible. Furthermore, most social conservatives demonize those who don't believe in the same values. Therefore, you shut out the majority of fiscal conservatives who are not social conservatives. When you, and other social conservatives will accept a pro-choice presidential candidate because they have other conservative values, then I will know that you have a place in the Republican party. Furthermore, I look forward to the day when you fully accept other religions, whether it be Muslim or Mormon as equals. When you admit that other people's beliefs are as valid as yours, then you have a place in the party. When you stop talking about this country as a "Christian" country, then you have a place in the political scene. When you stop using Obama's middle name, I'll know that you are a true Christian.

No, I'm not a Christian, I'm a Jew and have read the Bible in the original Aramaic and studied the Talmud. Have you? Have you even read the Koran? Have you studied Hindu? (You need to do that if you want to support Jindal.) Do you understand why intelligent design is not science?

David| 11.5.08 @ 4:38PM

I am a political liberal, practicing Christian, Democrat in Alabama. I have actually become liberal politically after being baptised in the Methodist church as an adult. I rely heavily on the writings of David Brooks and George F. Will. At the time of his death, William F. Buckley was credited with creating the modern conservative movement by driving the John Birchers, Klan and isolationists and anti-semitics out of the movement.

Since 1968 the Republican Party has attempted to divide us on race, then other social issues. Under Lee Atwater, Jessie Helms and Pat Buchannen and Rush Limbaugh, the right became mean, hateful and dismissive of anyone who failed whatever litmus test was in vogue. Finally, under Rove and Chany, all pretense of integrity was thrown out the window.

Although I believe the Social Conservatives give all Christians a bad name, it is an equally huge mistake to turn the Republican Party over to Ayn Rand disciples.

Here are some general thoughts. First, if you want to govern, you probably need to believe government can do some good. Second, wealth and income inequality really matter (see the book of Acts)(a recent article on Real Clear Politics recently demonstrated that Democratic votes increase among all income groups in areas where there is a wider economic disparity than where there is not). Third, people can not support their famalies by themselves anymore-they can not hunt and fish and grow crops, they must depend on manufacture and trade to live. Fourth, we really do all breath the same air, drink the same water, eat the same food, burn the same fuel. Fifth, government has to be bigger because society is bigger and more complex and technology multiplies exponentially the amount of social interaction (friction). Sixth, all of our favorite government programs are socialist (highways, schools the military for instance--think about it). Seventh, yet if you want me to listen to you, don't start by calling me names (sorry Sara Palin, folks who live in big cities are REAL AMERICANS). Eigth, you actually have to have some ideas; real ideas. It really does not do a thing to scream the same tired old slogans and you cannot win simply by being against something, you have to be for something (anything). Second, being smart and educated is a good thing--get off of stupid.

Yes, there is a huge role for true conservative intellectuals to play in addressing our myriad problems, but you have to be interested in good government (see Bob Riley in Alabama), not just winning elections with hot button issues. And you have to be willing to listen to those who disagree with you. Good Luck!

cynic| 11.5.08 @ 4:42PM

Will concervatives who want small government ever be specific. I know they have this code where they stimulate each other but are afraid to be specific.

If you mean kill medicare, say so.
If you mean kill SS say so.
If you mean kill farm programs say so.

DO NOT JUST SPEAK IN CODE TO CARESS EACH OTHER . Say what you really mean in detail and then wait to be thrown out with the rubish since if you are honest about what you mean most people will not want you.

ReturnFreeRisk| 11.5.08 @ 4:44PM

Let me be clarify - I am a small government conservative but socially liberal - I am fine with social conservatives as long as they dont call me an abortionist and "anti american." And dont force your morals onto me.

To the liberals - I hope Obama gets off the "bash wall st for the mess" bandwagon and regulation will fix it all. Bubbles are a by product of human behavior and emotions (run amock helped by cheap money) - NOT lack of regulation. So dont try to fix everything. And second, let the people who bought these houses hoping they will go up forever take some lumps - enough of the nanny state. Huge moral hazard is the basic problem in this economy.

Tim| 11.5.08 @ 5:15PM

Bob,

Perhaps I should address your objections point by point.

Being pro-life and supporting war is not a contradiction. Babies are innocent. Wicked men must sometimes be fought. Saddam signed a peace treaty after his invasion of his neighbors that said he would open his country to weapons inspectors. He broke that treaty and therefore peace ceased and war began anew. If peace treaties are to mean anything then they must be enforced. To object to this is to be a Chamberlain. By the way, even Barak Obama supports the war in Afghanistan. The world is better without Saddam leading Iraq and in a few years Iraq will probably become and ally like defeated Japan and Germany after WWII. An ally in the Middle East that is democratic will do wonders for the region.

Christian churches do more for the poor than most non-church attenders. We have food and clothes closets that help many out in our communities. Just because we do not wish to use liberal government to help the poor does not mean we offer no help. If you want to see how successful liberal welfare policies have helped the poor, please visit any inner city housing project. Liberal policy is good intentions that hurt the very people they intend to help.

Health Care: Last time I checked, Republicans have health care proposals. Medical savings accounts and individual health insurance that moves with people and is not tied to their jobs. Republicans give choice; Democrats plan a system with no choice of doctors. Also, it is worth noting that Romney, a Republican, has put together universal health care in his state and many Republicans support his methodology. I for one do.

Abortion: You are right on here. I will not support a man for the presidency who does not have the sense or the decency to support babies living. What kind of man supports the killing of children? If the mother was deathly ill I could understand supporting abortion in that instance, but to say a baby should be killed for convenience! This violates motherly instinct as well as common sense. We must bring immigrants into this country for labor because we have killed over 40,000,000 people/babies. We would not even be having a social security crisis if those babies would have lived and currently be paying taxes. I will only vote for someone who supports killing babies if their opponent is also pro-abortion.

As far as respecting other people’s religious views and lifestyles, I have many friends who do not agree with my faith, and we politely agree to disagree. To ask a religious person who believes in Truth with a capital T to accept another religion as equal is a bit much. Religion does not all teach the same thing, they contradict one another. So, unless you are going after a feel good religion that has no real substance, you will have to tolerate different fundamental beliefs between religions.

Lastly, yes I know Hebrew and have read the Koran. I have also studied other religions like Hinduism. You seem to believe that you are brighter than Christians. I gather this from you tone. I remind you that some of the greatest thinkers in the history of the world were Christians (Newton, Descartes, etc). We did not become the biggest religion in the world by being stupid.

Lastly, in regard to Intelligent Design, why can’t you be tolerant of another sincere position? If liberals would only practice the tolerance they preach I would respect them much, much more.

Bingo| 11.5.08 @ 5:44PM

"Lastly, in regard to Intelligent Design, why can’t you be tolerant of another sincere position?"

Anything that tries to explain objective reality is a hypothesis that can be subjected to the scientific method. In other words, it should be verifiable by people regardless of whether they believe the hypothesis in the first place.

As a hypothesis, Intelligent Design has been slammed into the floor over and over again.

If you demand that ID be taken seriously anyway, because you believe it sincerely, then any and all beliefs are vindicated by faith alone.

In other words, if you demand acceptance for ID, you must in turn accept that homosexuality is not a choice, life does not begin at conception, and women are equal to men in every way.

You know, because like you and ID, enough people believe those things sincerely.

Bingo| 11.5.08 @ 5:55PM

Those who argue for ID do not use the Bible but science to justify their beliefs. If they are playing by scientific rules then they should be accepted by the scientific community. It is not as if ID is quoting the Bible to justify their science.

Tom Paine| 11.5.08 @ 5:58PM

Tim --

I appreciate your thoughtful post.

I think many, many people believe that the Iraq War was a war of choice, not of necessity.

No matter what, you do understand that in war most of the people killed are not "wicked men" but simply people caught up in the fighting, or enlisted into it for reasons having nothing to do with ideology.

If you drop a bomb on a house you know probably has civilians in it because you believe a terrorist is there, you've entered a moral terrain that is anything but clear.

The deaths of tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of Iraqi civilians is sometimes minimized by supporters of this war. That confuses and offends liberals in the same way that pro-life people are confused and offended by people who casually dismiss the moral complexities raised by abortion.

Bingo| 11.5.08 @ 6:13PM

First of all, *I'm* Bingo, not that poster at 4:55 p.m.

Second, to answer that person, it is altogether correct for ID proponents to argue their case scientifically to other scientists.

However, the mere fact that they are speaking the lingo doesn't mean that what they're saying must be taken as fact.

For example, the argument for irreducible complexity often cites the flagellum as something that must have been created whole in order to be useful. It could never have evolved incrementally, they say, because all of its previous iterations would have been useless.

In fact, this same argument could be summarized as "I just can't imagine how this thing could have developed from something else, because I can't imagine how this thing is useful as anything else. Therefore, it sprang fully formed into being."

This is false. In fact, a kind of ion channel called a Type III secretory apparatus looks a lot like flagella, except they're missing a few pieces. The reduced structure is useful as something else.

In this example, ID proponents used an argument based on their inability to imagine something as proof that it's not true. Looks scientific and sounds scientific, but of course, it's not.

The Future is Limitless| 11.5.08 @ 6:25PM

Not to over-simplify your piece sir, but you might have just entitled this article "sour-grapes" and saved your readers a bunch of time.

Tom K| 11.5.08 @ 6:45PM

"In other words, if you demand acceptance for ID, you must in turn accept that homosexuality is not a choice, life does not begin at conception, and women are equal to men in every way. "

Bingo, this assertion makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. "Acceptance" is not the issue. Truth is the truth, whether one chooses to accept it or not. And women are not "equal to men", they are fundamentally physically and emotionally different. To say this is not sexist or bigoted, just a statement of scientifically and psycologically validated truth. I guess sometimes the truth is just hard for some of us to accept.

Bingo| 11.5.08 @ 7:07PM

Tom K -

I agree, on both counts. I don't believe acceptance is truth, nor do I believe that women are exactly equal to men in all aspects.

However, there are those who believe in very extreme versions of gender equality. Would you humor them if they demand your unconditional belief? No, of course not. You'd demand proof. And, not being one to believe them, you'd hold them to the highest standards of proof.

Well, isn't that the same for ID? To ask for "tolerance" of ID in public schools, when it has so far failed to prove itself to nonbelievers, is the same sort of fluffy thinking you'd rightly abhor in any leftist.

Bogey| 11.5.08 @ 7:08PM

hey, glad to see I am also not alone in my own personal "David Brooks/Andrew Sullivan" wing (now deceased) of the Republican party.

well, I'm offically an independent now, forever.

actually, I could probably meet the social conservatives HALFway on some/many aspects of their agenda but never ever fully and as one astute poster notes, moderation and lack of overreach goes against their very nature.

Btw, I like and have always liked Newt Gingrich, even when I disagree with him becuase unlike W you can tell he thoughtful and has a brain. However, I have a question- how many promises in the Contract with America did the GOP fulfill?

get back to me when you find ONE.

finally, I get comedic seizures (laugh wildly scarily and unstoppably when some of these so called "true conservatives" (who in reality are too dumb to even understand the term and the history of conservatism)

I love it when these yokels say McCain is a "RINO" and a "true conservative" was needed.

like WHO?
Caribou Barbie? (I'm not sure she can ever recover from the moronic Russia claims and inability to list a single magazine/paper she reads)
of course I could be wrong, W was of similar ilk.

how about a "true conservative" like Rick Santorum?

ummm.. errr.. yeah, except he lost his Senate seat by 20 pts. hahahahaha

a "true conservative" of the "freedom fries"/Rick Reed/Dobson variety would have lost this election by 30 pts.

and no such Republican can EVER win a national election, unless he can somehow repudiate the crap he spews in the primaries in the general.

but a good chameleon, snake oil salesman like Mitt Romney will try.

I'll be watching from afar and laughing.

p.s. I'd be interested in a restructuring/rejuvenation of the Libertarian Party as well if the gop stays hijacked.

Joe Doaks| 11.5.08 @ 7:13PM

The repubs won by nationalizing elections. The Demos won by localizing this one. We are now a 2.4 billion acre small town, and we just elected a national Mayor, for the short-term, short-sighted reasons typical of local politics.

Americans are the most generous people on earth, but this time for some reason fell for the appeals to selfishness, guilt and envy, and refused to look beyond their own walls. We voted to feel good for a few weeks, instead of voting for our families, our children, our communities, our country.

Things run in cycles. We look outward, we look inward. We vote for individualism, we vote for government. I think we just saw some sort of harmonic convergence. It'll get better. But it'll prob get worse first, as we re-learn hard lessons. Reagan said, there are simple answers, they are just not the easy ones.
.

joe doaks| 11.5.08 @ 7:21PM

(Bogey )>> I'll be watching from afar and laughing.

Have fun. I've been laughing all day, and don't see myself stopping anytime soon. HA! It's all so damn funny. Look at you. You're so ... earnest! HAHAHAHAHAHA!
.

Dave D.| 11.5.08 @ 7:26PM

True fiscal conservatism could represent a viable political party. Social Security and Medicaid are unsustainable in their present form according to the GAO, Treasury Dpt, and OMB.

However, the phony nationalism and social conservatism that represent the Republican party today must go away. If you won't pay for the wars via taxes, do not advocate them. Gay marriage and abortion have no place in the national discourse; those are state-level or private matters and are highly divisive.

Energy independence is another good centrist issue to advocate. Further, we have to realize that we do not have the financial strength to support large defense expenditures right now, as we are borrowing and shifting the debt to our kids to pay for it, placing them at risk. Even General George Washington said that "overgrown" military establishments were not conducive to liberty. Big military is big government. We can protect ourselves from Terrorism through intelligence and international cooperation just as well as with tanks, planes and ships. Once conservatives realize these obvious truths, they will have a shot on the national scene again.

Bob| 11.5.08 @ 7:30PM

Tim, the non-acceptance of the belief in others is the same argument used for militant Islam. They believe that theirs it the "Truth", not yours. This is sheer intolerance and is one of the main reasons the Bush presidency was a failure and the Republican party is dying. It is extremely arrogant to believe you are Right and others are wrong based on nothing but words printed on paper. Religion does have a place in mans' lives, but does not have a place in politics. In politics, your strict beliefs make you intolerant. And ponder this -- as many self described evangelists supported Obama this time as supported McCain.

The problem that I have with you is that your bigoted activities subvert the ability of the Republican party to advance the cause of fiscal conservatism by not allowing the majority of fiscal conservatives (who happen to be pro-choice) from gaining status in the Republican Party. You would be far more effective in spreading your beliefs if you were tolerant of those who did not believe in the same way. Then you could at least invite them to the table to discuss those issues.

You certainly have the right to minimize the impact of the Republican party, but unfortunately that will eventually hurt our country and our democracy. Oh, that's right, you don't believe in democracy because you know the "Truth".

That is, all men are not equal, people should live by your laws, women should be subservient to men, you should not believe much of science, man should be able to marry many women in a biblical manner, and women who do adultery should be stoned. Sounds good to but my wife and daughters might excommunicate me...

Bogey| 11.5.08 @ 7:30PM

hey Joel

the "intellectual capacity of the party"?
you're joking, right?

the party of J. Danforth Quayle, and George W Bush? the party of freedom fries?

the party that loves Caribou Barbie that didn't run and hide after Gibson and Couric interviews (yeah, those were real GOTCHA questions, I could have answered them in my sleep)

but instead had the GALL to cry "sexism" , a favorite tactic of Dems of old when they presented their own clueless females? (Ferraro, Schroeder) .

I would pay BIG bucks to see a Hilary/Palin debate. It would be a disembowelment.

too funny.

Michael from NE| 11.5.08 @ 8:07PM

Until yesterday I had cast only one vote for a Democratic candidate at any level (for Richard J Daley to be Mayor of Chicago in 1971; his opponent was the owner of a house-painting company). I have dutifully supported the GOP from 1968 to this year. But Tuesday I did not cast a vote for a single GOP candidate. Why? Because the party had abandoned all principle.

I will return my allegiance to the Republican Party when it no longer caters to the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and their supporters. The GOP today has based its existence on a rabble of 21st century Know-Nothings, people who have no motive higher than preserving their comfortable way of life. As long as the GOP operates with the assumption that those who favor Sarah Palin and her like are the BASE of the party, it will not find a base in the remainder of America's political landscape. The Republican Party will once again prosper when it can repudiate and operate without conservative talk radio and Fox Know-Nothing News.

Andrew P| 11.5.08 @ 8:16PM

A lot depends on events.

We just had the largest credit bubble in history. History teaches it is not easy to recover from these things without lots of time, but good policy helps a lot. If the Dems don't handle it correctly, the economy will go to hell in a handbasket. If the economy fully recovers 4 years from now, Obama will go into 2012 as a hero and the Democratic party will be ascendant for 30 years. If we sink either into a deflationary depression or a hyperinflationary spiral, Obama could be seen as the second coming of Herbert Hoover or Jimmy Carter. The Dems now have full control with 57 Senate seats and both ends of PA Avenue firmly in their grasp. They now have full responsibility, and if we have a Depression in 2011 I don't think blaming Bush will fly to enough voters to prevent a rout in 2012.

toritto| 11.5.08 @ 8:17PM

My wife and I had a profoundly retarded son - he never spoke a word or walked - he never sat up - he never looked at me - for all I knew he was deaf and blind as well.

Every meal he ever ate we fed him. Every diaper he ever wore we changed him. Every foot he ever moved from where he was lying we carried him. Every time he went to bed we carried him upstairs. Every morning we carried him downstairs.

We became a test marketing project for Depends adult diapers - we got 'em free and had to let the manufacturer know what we thought of them.

He lived to be ten years old. We did nothing but worry about what was going to happen to him. Then one day he simply woke up and died.

My wife gave up the best ten years of her life caring for Michael. We got no help from any government agency except our local school for handicapped kids. No medicare ; no medicaid; no state assistance. You see I "made too much money" - what a joke that was.

Michael is gone now. So is my wife. She never went to church. She was not a believer. If there is a God in his heaven then she is sitting under a massive oak watching her perfect 10 year old son play with his 12 year old brother (yes - we lost two boys) in the green grass under a sunny sky with a cool breeze moving through his hair mop - "Mommy look at me!! Look at my kite!!" and she will wave and smile.

There was no Catholic priest at her funeral - a local female Methodist minister who knew my wife, a woman who never went to church, as woman who lived Christian values in her daily life . I will not forget her kindness. She spoke without being asked of how this woman made a lunch hour appointment for an abortion and changed her own mind at the last minute and went on to have two fine daughters. My wife was glad she had a choice.

Talk is cheap. It’s a lot easier talk about having a kid like Mike than to be the parents. Too many of you fine religious folk feel so good about yourselves for being “pro-life”, then you smile and go on to your next “Fellowship” meeting or casserole supper..

If you knew in advance you were going to have a Michael, would you want a choice?

No one should have to bear a Michael at age 30 if they don’t want to.......that’s choice.

Those who advocate the opposite should be prepared to urge society to provide care for that child for its entire life, even if you have to raise taxes. It’s the cost of being pro-life. Think of that the next time you see two old people pushing an adult retarded child in a wheel chair in the mall.

malm| 11.5.08 @ 8:20PM

I have a dream. A third party. It will be politically agnostic. I have had this dream for a few months and even had a dream ticket if david petreaus and michael crichton. Sadly Mr. Crichton died today. It can be said the the Rebublican paarty died yesterday. What can be said of a party that is outraged by a measly hike in the minimum wage, and clamors for tax cuts for the super rich ? Hopless. Juriasic Park-the gop, the same non adapting, thick skulled creatures inabit each place. Go third party, let us do it. I even have a name, the MAP, for modern american party. It is the only hope, and as for these conservative beasts let us hope they become like the lead bull creature the Limbaughasaurus, and never go forth and multiply.

Bogey| 11.5.08 @ 8:33PM

Michael from NE, I am shocked you made it thru 2004. That was MY year of declaring independence from the pitchfork wielding rabble currently called "the base".

I was going to do it in 2000, after hearing idiot boy destroy the language within 5 minutes and seeing the wackos and nutjobs do a number on McCain in South Carolina.

but I gritted my teeth one last time.

it's a mistake I'l regret forever, because after all that came iraq, terry schiavo (btw./ has Frist's medical license been revoked?) and the rest of the disasters we've come to know and love.

oh and after the Swiftboating of Kerry and what was done to Max Cleland in GA, I may never vote GOP again (at least not until all these clowns die) .

imagine the irony of never serveda day in his life cheney and idiot boy W who proudly protected our skies from that marauding Mexican air force smearing genuine heros who have bled for this country, even when its adventures were misguided.

Trevor Thornton| 11.5.08 @ 8:37PM

Conservatism dead? Conservatism wins every time it is on the ballot as such, just like the anti-gay marriage initiative in California yesterday. When McCain lost on Tuesday, it was a moderate getting beat, not a conservative. Never give up the conservative crusade, fellow GOP'ers.

Dennis D| 11.5.08 @ 8:38PM

Obama makes 1st Mistake

His father, the Jerusalem-born Benjamin M. Emanuel, is a pediatrician and was a member of the Irgun, a militant Zionist group active during the British Mandate of Palestine.
How does Obama think he can be an honest broker of peace in the MidEast?

marky | 11.5.08 @ 8:43PM

"The sooner conservatives realize that Obama is not merely a gifted orator, but an incredibly talented politician with the potential to be a transformational liberal leader, the better prepared they will be to resist his agenda. In a time of economic crisis, with Democrats having overwhelming control of both chambers of Congress, stopping him will be difficult, but it won't be impossible."

i appreciate your honesty. obama is changing the conservative party because you were too obstinate.

Bogey| 11.5.08 @ 8:57PM

hey Trevor.. how bout Rick Santorum. Goerge Allen?

Caribou Barbie?

I don't really care about gay marriage one way or other but gay couples should have ALL the legal protections of a heterosexual couple.

as to "marriage" - why is GOVERNMENT involved in this in the first place? one way or the other? is my love or commitment only validated by the GOVENRMENT's approval?

what's really at stake is the same reason marriage was legally invented in the first place - property and inheritance rights.

Tim| 11.5.08 @ 9:00PM

Tom,

Point well taken. War is a messy business, both physically and morally. Christians have developed something called Just War Theory. You might be interested in it, if you have not already studied it.

Bob,

You really need to think through what you are saying. If there is no Truth with a capital T, what are we left with? Evolution's survival of the fittest. The strong should prey on the weak so that the strong reproduce and the race grows stronger still. Hitler believed this way because he rejected Biblical values. Why should I not harm another if it helps me. Don't give me this social contract nonsense either. Every social contract harms certain groups and they have no reason to follow the society's rules. The minority will always end up destroying the social contract and creating another one that benefits them and leaves another group out in the cold. How do you suggest we order morality in society? By popular vote?!?! You fail to appreciate the founders argument that rights are given by God alone, and what God gives no man can lawfully take away. Under this philosophy God and what he says (Word or Bible) matters a lot. If you want to abandon our founding fathers that is fine, but what will you replace it with? Public education fails to even raise these big questions and thus people like yourself do not even appreciate the moral philosophy that birthed your own nation, nor the blessing of Christian morality to Western Civilization. Did you know the Bible used to be quoted by the courts? Right now America's foundational values are held in place by the traditional religious right. We serve a pragmatic purpose. Think about this, Barrack Obama will swear to uphold the constitution of the United States which say we all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Doesn't he need to know when life begins in order to fulfill his oath? Yet Americans have such a low view of oath taking that it does not matter. Sadly, "above my paygrade" is an acceptable answer. In the long term, as the religious right weakens, our morality will be defined by the majority. This is dangerous to say the least. Only religion can argue for moral knowledge and Truth. Without God saying this is right or wrong, all we have is opinions. In history the opinions of men abuse the minority. . . men become brutes and natures survival of the fittest becomes our reality. Truth with a capital T makes and tames men into more than beast. Look at popular culture, what is our obsession? Sexual instinct. Men must be challenged to be more than animals who simply follow instinct. Truth with a capital T accomplishes this.


You say religion has no place in politics, but politics concerns itself with how to morally order a culture. Politics and religion have always worked hand in hand throughout human history because law is based upon moral assumptions and beliefs. To deny this is simply naive. Remember, to deny God in our political system is to deny your rights defined in the Constitution. Why? If rights come from government then we can have an election to take away your rights. I find it a sad day when most men do not even think deeply about why certain actions are right or wrong, and where their rights come from.


Your argument about social conservatives running out fiscal conservatives does not work. We could work together and elect someone who is both socially and fiscally conservative. This is how coalitions have always worked. The problem is Democrats have adopted many Republican economic policies. So now fiscal conservatives can vote either party. The democrats and the world have adopted free trade and capitalists policies. So, as I have said earlier, Republicans are victims of their own success.


Truth and democracy are also not a contradiction. The Bible says we are made in the image of God which means we rule on earth as God rules the universe. Thus giving all men and women a right to vote enables them to rule as God intended, as well as be held accountable by God for the choices they make as opposed to a king choosing the nations destiny. Every generation must stand up for the Truth or it will be lost. . . and when truth is lost people suffer.


Lastly you said:


"That is, all men are not equal, people should live by your laws, women should be subservient to men, you should not believe much of science, man should be able to marry many women in a biblical manner, and women who do adultery should be stoned. Sounds good to but my wife and daughters might excommunicate me... "


Are you serious? All men are not equal? Christians believe all men are equal, which is why we defend the unborn, old, and disabled from those who believe that these people are worthless because they don't do anything useful!


People should live by your law. . . Last time I checked that is what everyone wants. We all vote for lawmakers who will make laws we like. I thought that was democracy, with our democracy amended to include a bill of right given by God upon which no man shall interfere.


Women should be subservient to men- Back when Christians dominated the culture women were treated like princesses. Men opened the doors and were taught to speak gently to women. Now that the feminist have had their way depression meds are commonplace for women and men treat women like men instead of the beautiful jewels they are. It is not Christians who hate women, we glorify everything feminine. Is a man suppose to lead his house? Yes, not for the benefit of himself, but his family. This is servant leadership. In the teachings of Christ, all authority is given to serve others not oneself (ex. public service, being the leader at home). Also, look at the status of men. They are challenged to do nothing, and as a result grown men have become nothing more than big teenagers. Christianity challenges men to lead, do great things, and make a difference. I do not see that being accomplished in public schools.


The Bible never advocates polygamy, though it tolerated the practice. Adam and Eve were the ideal from the beginning: one man and one woman.


As far as the death penalty for sexual sins you have got me there. Yet is should be noted that judges were set up in Israel and they were to have the final say on punishment. Just because the maximum sentence was death does not mean the judge had to issue that punishment. Christians are firm believers in justice or punishment for sin, but we equally advocate mercy for the guilty. We must strive to balance justice with mercy perfectly, just as God does. In the Old Testament the death penalty was rarely used upon adulterers and other sexual sins. By the way, men could be stoned for adultery too. The highest punishment for adultery was given not so much to put people to death, though it could be done, but rather to make a statement about the importance of marriage and being faithful to you family. Anyone who has been hurt by adultery (Children and spouses) can appreciate this extremely strong warning.


Hope this helps you understand our faith a little better. . . perhaps even appreciate it. . . some :)

kc| 11.5.08 @ 9:27PM

Anyone who doesn't get that the base of the party IS THE PROBLEM, is part of the problem. The base of the Democrats is the problem in that party, but in 8 short years, Bush has managed to show the country that the only differences between a lefty and a social conservative is more adept at using a credit card and likes to legislate morality.

The Social cons got their dream boy in Bush....he's one of them, and he managed to screw up the country and the party.

I really wish the "real" cons would follow up on threats to split off from the party, so that maybe the Republicans could return to the old tradition of being the Moderate party.

Considering all the moderates got voted out, I guess that's not going to happen anytime soon.

clark | 11.5.08 @ 9:55PM

It simple. If the Republican party wants to be anything more than a regional, religious party then it needs to change. I am a fiscal conservative who voted Republican until the Religious right took over. The test if you were a Republican used to be if you were small goverment, personal liberty oriented you were welcome regardless of your religious beliefs. No more. You might as well hang a sign on every party office that says "Conservatives Need Not Apply". Unless you are a socially conservative Christian. Even Mitt Romney was not good enough for todays Republican leader. If my choice is between Secular big spenders who listen and the Religious Right crowd who spend then I will either sit out the next elections or vote against Religious extremeism.

A big lesson was delt to the Republican Party yesterday and like the Democrats in 1980 its probably 8 to 12 years before they retool thier message.

clark| 11.5.08 @ 10:26PM

Freedom Fan

"Republicans led by Lincoln freed the slaves and Democrats led by George Wallace stood in schoolhouse doors during the civil rights movement.".

What a hoot! George Wallace was the conservative traditionalist governor of Alabama. If you think he was a "liberal" then this is further evidence that the anti-intellectual, religious wing of the GOP has hit the skids and slammed into the oncoming train.

in SoCal| 11.5.08 @ 11:06PM

This election was racial. Obama's skin color got elected, not Obama. Ltt's recognize this for what it is and get going on true hope and change. Palin 2012.

Steve A.| 11.6.08 @ 12:03AM

QUote:

David D | 11.5.08 @ 8:35AM
Wow. John Vescuso thinks that Obama is a fascist, when he is the exact opposite of a fascist and when Sarah Palin relied on fascist appeals to state her case. Wendy thinks that Republicans have or, at least, once had an altruistic "streak". Susan thinks that liberals want to destroy families and that depriving a certain group of people of the equal protection of the law is somehow a good thing., blah, blah, blah, blah....... END QUOTE

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, yawn, yawn. Yet more omnipresent Liberal self-congratulatory clap trap we are exposed to after Mr. Chicago snatched an election. No, Mr. Obama's win doesn't mean much other than the tactical, not strategic, political conditions were ripe for this used car salesman to win. This is not a mandate for Liberals. It is not a sea-change away from conservatism, no matter how much you Liberals wish it so. Bad economy + wars + mal-content Liberal media and self-marginalized whining Liberals = Barack Obama for 4 years, possibly 8. Please give us a break with your Liberal "Change" mantra. It is wearing thin dude. If Liberalism was on the march, the gay marriage bans would not have passed, so lay off with your Democrat Big-Tent nonsense.

Remember the big promises of Carter. Just promises and ineptitude foreign policy. Remember Mr. Kennedy and Viet Nam. Give it a rest, America did not validate Liberalism, it merely slapped the Republicans around this time. The Dems will be next, trust me.

Steve A| 11.6.08 @ 12:13AM

Quote:

like WHO?
Caribou Barbie? (I'm not sure she can ever recover from the moronic Russia claims and inability to list a single magazine/paper she reads)
of course I could be wrong, W was of similar ilk.

how about a "true conservative" like Rick Santorum?

ummm.. errr.. yeah, except he lost his Senate seat by 20 pts. hahahahaha

a "true conservative" of the "freedom fries"/Rick Reed/Dobson variety would have lost this election by 30 pts. End Quote:

The onslaught goes on and on. Tolerant, socially responsible Liberals with the "welcome to all" sign up but they just can't get past dissing Conservatives. Give it a rest simpleton. Liberals have not cornered the market on intelligence, as your post clearly indicates. I disagree with your politics, from the innane snippets you have provided me. Go in peace and enjoy your few warm minutes in the sun, while you hammer away at those that oppose your strident, simple, watery pseudo socialism. Mr. Obama will surprise you, if you pay any taxes at all, that is. Your Chosen One was elected by the extra votes provided by fired-up students with little real-world experience; by political mal-contents still sore about Bush winning twice and incapable of understanding the dangers of socialism; and of course, by geniuses such as yourself, who dismiss an entire voting block as if they were morons. You don't impress me, so please stay on your side of the political divide.

Steve A.| 11.6.08 @ 12:21AM

Quote:
Not to over-simplify your piece sir, but you might have just entitled this article "sour-grapes" and saved your readers a bunch of time" end quote.

Not to over-simplify your over simplification, but please head over to the New Republic where your comments will be appreciated for what they are. And thank you for curing all of my friends and most relatives of Liberalism. The truth is, the best cure for Liberalism is Liberalism, especially that spouted from American college students, perhaps, such as yourself. But, please feel free to continue your brilliant exposition on "Sour-Grapes" while I take a little snooze....

Steve A.| 11.6.08 @ 12:33AM

Fellow Conservatives and those Liberals who are not still celebrating the recent election:

The Obama win is a blessing in disguise for us. It will put on full display the entire multi-hued panorama of Liberalism for our fellow Americans to see. They will get to see the wide array of mal-contented groups who despise the injustices of America, but who demand more Largesse from her. We will enjoy watching the "Victim of the Month Club" paraded in the media for us to show pity for. The poor, the minorities, the disenfranchised, the distraught, the mis-understood "freedom fighters" (Not terrorists, by the way) will all lay their sad cases at our feet. Mr. Obama, of course, will apply fatherly correctives to his children should they stray from the script. Alltogether we are now a great nation, which last night, was a terrible nation. Thank God Mr. Obama has won to remind us all just how bad we are, except Democrats and Liberals of course. Bring it on. Let the cartoon begin, and we shall get through the next four years stronger, leaner (by shedding off moderates to the Democrats who have room in the Inn) and braced for the resurgence of true Conservatism. Also, by the next election, many of the young and misguided will hopefully be gainfully employed, possibly with families. Perhaps their income, without parental support, will exceed the Democrats rapidly dropping middle class bottom level. Me thinks many of them will have seen Liberalism for what it is: A cartoon, a two-dimensional rendering of life as created for our amusement by those ashamed to Americans, but happy to drink her milk.

Steve A.| 11.6.08 @ 12:36AM

Mike said:
I'm a happy and proud Obama supporter and generally dependable democrat. Here's my advice to the Republican party... Go back to Eisenhower. Get back to meat and potatoes basics of running the country in the most efficient and unobtrusive way. Ditch all the religious/values talk (please!) And definitely ditch the us-against-them rhetoric. Do those things and you will re-invigorate your party with millions of new members, very possibly including myself, etc.

Mike, you have a good point here sir. Not sure if you are a troll, but you make sense. Could you be a, a, a..... Libertarian? :)

Bogey| 11.6.08 @ 4:01AM

steve a, perhaps the simpleton is YOU.

I am a graduate of a top 10 university who has always kept his roots in the middle class. I've probably paid more taxes in the course of a single year in good years than your gross income that year, so please take your inane "insights" and stick them where the sun doesn't shine.

I'm not dissing "conservatives". I AM a conservative, (of the libertarian ilk). You and your fellow rabble have HIJACKED the term.
perhaps you should do some reading.

I know it's "elitist" in today's GOP to read.. but try anways.

Edmund Burke, William F Buckley, even intelligent conservatives today .. in fact.. Ben Stein, who called our Caribou Barbie for being the woefully ignorant candidate she was actually believes in creationism.. yet I consider him an intelligent person (yes, I understand how difficult this is to reconcile, I struggle with it myself)

for Caribou Barbie to claim she knew Russia because it's next door was the height of chutzpah, especially since she's never even had a passport until recently. (100 dollars says she doesn't know the name of the berings straits)

anyways... SIR
you are not a conservative.. you are a pitch and fork carrying theocrat. Go and crawl back into your hole and give me back my name "conservative" please.

and re slamming anyone, I only slam them if they are DUMB.

Dumb like dumbo W. (his brother Jeb is NOT dumb, though I hated him for interfering in the Terry Schiavo affair).

Dumb like J Danforth Quyale.

Dumb like Sarah Palin.

Dumbest like Sean Hannity.

Newt Gingrich, is NOT dumb.

solzh| 11.6.08 @ 11:48AM

Mr. Klein, you presume continuing freedom of speech, including on the internet and airwaves. You assume that thoughtcrime laws will not shut down those very thinktanks you appeal to. Cheerfulness is a good thing. Pollyannishness is not.

Quite a few astroturfers from the netroots on the site today, aren't there.

Krimia River| 11.6.08 @ 5:35PM

First, a look at the actual numbers doesn't lend any credence to the idea that this election marked some landmark shift in the citizenry. With the numbers which I'm seeing now, Obama `08 got roughly 4 million more votes than Kerry `04, while McCain got 6 million fewer votes than Bush `04. This suggests a very simple interpretation: 2 million Bush `04 voters stayed home for whatever reason, while 4 million switched sides. That's the easiest way to get from the `04 numbers to the `08 numbers without additional assumptions or speculation.

My guess is the 4 million who switched is largely composed of independent "swing" voters with no strong allegiance to either party or any ideology, and they likely have a distaste for politics in general and/or don't pay it much attention. As shallow as it might seem to some, they may have merely been voting their discontent and anxiety, however futiley, their desire for "change", however fuzzily defined by the candidates, or just making an instinctual gut call that they "liked" Obama more than McCain, perhaps only because he's tall, good-looking, and has a million-dollar smile. I'm sure they'll shortly be studied to death, and, most likely, all the wrong conclusions drawn.

The important thing to realize is that these switchers represent only one in thirty voters -- because that's what 4 million out of about 120 million total voters is. Thus, 95+% of the electorate probably voted exactly the same way they did four years ago (and four years before that). The difference was indeed enough to flip many states that were a few points red into states that were a few points blue, which causes the electoral college totals to exaggerate, and thus hide, the amount of actual change.

So I think it's a bit premature to be proclaiming the death of the Republican Party, or conservatism (whichever flavor, or however defined), or some huge lurch to the left in the country, or much of anything else. Anybody making sweeping proclamations is wrong. Any change in the electorate was very slight and incremental, and may just reflect the times, the
idiosyncrasies of the candidates, the glacial changes in demographics, or it might be entirely spurious.

A 52/46 loss is not exactly a total repudiation, and McCain/Palin actually did rather well compared to the generic congressional race numbers, especially considering the economic headwinds, as well as the fact that for reasons which are a mystery to me the McCain campaign failed to capitalize on many things which could have been big winners for them. I.e., that the huge market sell-off right after the conventions was due to fear over Obamanomics, an early vote on his being elected, which all the polls were predicting as a near-certainty; or Biden's long/deep connections to the credit card industry, and his role in the recent re-writing of the bankruptcy laws against the interests of the "little guy"; or the fact that Palin's first appointment to the Alaska Supreme Court was someone who'd worked hard to bring healthcare to the poor.

In spite of these glaring oversights it could have easily been a 15-18 point blowout loss, but it wasn't. So rather than form a circular firing squad, people would do well to avoid the hyperbole and stick with what can really be stated with some certainty.

Second, I'm a bit bewildered by the comments here regarding "social conservatives", seeing as how McCain/Palin did not at all run on culture war issues, clearly because they've never been a part of either's "good governance" governing philosophy (regardless of their personal beliefs), whereas it's the Democrat's traditional tactic to run on identity politics. In fact, McCain/Palin ran away from culture war issues, even as they still had to bear the brunt, and thus the costs, of continual accusations to the contrary (Palin especially) from people who would never vote for them anyway. Such issues might have plausibly helped the ticket if they had given them more emphasis, given what others have mentioned - namely, the continued success of the gay marriage ban initiatives across the country, some in quite blue states (such as CA).

Third, beware of the alleged connection between "intelligence" or their quasi-proxy, educational levels, and voting patterns. The bluest state, Vermont, ranks around 40th on mean educational level, while similarly ultra-blue Massachusetts ranks much higher. The reddest state, Utah, has the 7th (or 8th, depending on which list you look at) best educated populace. Those who buy into the smug propaganda about smart people voting Democratic and dumb people voting Republican -- the stereotype is exactly reversed among ethnic minorities -- are themselves extremely dumb and will (rightfully) be lead astray by their stupidity and arrogance.

Fourth, whether knowingly or by some semi-random walk process, the Republicans over the last ~3 decades have more or less optimized a strategy for getting the most electoral college votes out of the fewest actual votes. Courting the most valuable voters is actually a pretty smart way to go about things. They've done this by appealing to those who live primarily in the large sparsely populated states, which is to say mainly rural and exurban voters. An enlarged view of Missouri at the county level is most illustrative: it's a sea of red, with several metro areas -- St. Louis and Kansas City, primarily -- looking like small blue islands set in its midst. The parties are split largely by geography and the effect such differing living circumstances have on people's outlooks concerning a myriad of things.

In particular, red areas tend to have a high ratio of men to women, they tend to be more white than average, and they tend to be places where people marry younger and have children in a very heterosexual fashion. Perhaps they also "cling to their guns and religion" too, but that's largely beside the point. If the Democrats are going to openly and continually pander to urbanites, women (especially the single variety), ethnic minorities, and gays/lesbians, the Republicans are almost forced to try as much as possible to appeal to men, whites, and heterosexuals (especially married moms). The obvious difficulty here, and why such terrain can be treacherous and thus demanding of the utmost skill to negotiate, is that these are the only three (or four) groups which are not allowed under current fashion dictates to have pride festivals. But the R's have to be unafraid of trying to appeal to such people, and as directly as possible, rather than uncertainly, hesitantly, and/or just by default, and in order to do so they have to understand this constituency's lives and concerns better -- not a whole lot better, because by and large I think they get most all this, but just a little better.

One area in particular where the R's could make vast improvements goes back to Obama's anti-father Father's Day speech, which he repeated in 2008 in case you missed it the first time around in 2007. Democrats are aggressively anti-men and anti-father, and the Republicans are for the most part passively anti-men and anti-father except in instances where visibility is high, and then they are just as aggressively anti-male and anti-father as the Democrats. It does not help when the one making whatever pro-family case you're making is an alpha-female feminist, and you're not really taking the issue on head-on in any event, making it another missed opportunity about real issues rather than symbolism.

Rolando| 11.6.08 @ 7:14PM

It's funny how we are quick to blame the President, conservatives, liberals...in order for us to succeed as a nation we need to take responsibility for our own actions. Our founding fathers did not form our Gov't to give away the farm or to spend like it's a 50% off sale at Macy's.

We vote for a reason and that's to vote for leaders who have our best interest as a country, to protect us from outside aggression, to have fiscal responsibility with our tax money...we as a country have not done this...Republicans or Democrats.

We keep voting the same old idiots back to Washington to do the same ole thing and then we complain about it. If the system is broken we need to fix it by electing new leaders with the qualities we need to bring our country back to prominence in the world. I believe in Conservatism. I believe we need to be clear on our objectives, our message, and our agenda to get back to our grassroots conservative movement and promote what I believe to be the core values that will bring us back from this current state of disaster in our country.

Faith in our creator...(We need it bad).

The family unit...(Our children depend on it).

Fiscal responsibility...(by gov't and individuals).

Real education reform...(Our future depends on it).

Smaller Gov't...(doing more with less=less taxes).

Rebuilding our Infrastructure...(creat new jobs).

Energy independence...(drill, solar, wind, nuclear, clean coal=creating new jobs).

We got to stop the bickering and come up with solution people, or you can kiss the good ole U.S.A. as we know it...good bye.

Nommin| 11.6.08 @ 7:19PM

The Republican party's policies consistently favor the wealthy, but the voter base has been maintained by making the most simpleminded and cliched appeals to morality and patriotism possible - thereby keeping the uneducated and most paranoid of the population on side.
This year the economy of the European Union surpassed that of the United States. While fully capitalist, those nations don't stick as closely as America does to the concept of the wealthy creating more wealth for everyone.
That someone as different from past Presidents as Obama (not just by race but by family history and affiliations) has been elected President is more than surprising. Would he have collected even more votes if it weren't for the fun some have with the names Hussein, Obama/Osama, Obama lin Biden, etc etc? Probably.
What can the Republican party do? Maybe hope the new administration makes plenty of mistakes, or adapt to a wider population.

Bogey| 11.6.08 @ 9:41PM

I never said there weren't a lot of Sutpid Dems. There are tons. Yet, interestingly enough, no matter how you disagree with their stances on issues and their politics, you'd be hard pressed to call their national candidates dumb or clueless abot the complexity of the issues at hand, even if you disagree with their stances. - UNLIKE W, Quayle and Palin.

Dukakis had tons of minuses but you can't say he was dumb. Ditto Kerry, that first W debate would have been halted by slaughter rule in the 1st inning. Ditto Slick Willy and hate HRC if you will but there's NO ONE else I'd prefer to represent me in a courtroom if my life and liberty were in peril.

seriously, watching Caribou Barbie after HRC this year was BEYOND painful.

have the democrats ever come up with such bufffoonery as "freedom fries"?

or Goebbelsian language propaganda tricks by calling a national surveillance program the PATRIOT act?

no. And the Dems have been "expanding" their tent, even as the pitchfork wielding rabble empty the gop's. I hope they nominate a "real consveravtive (the way the rabble defined him/her). We'll watch that clown lose by 20 next tme around.

Pat B.| 11.6.08 @ 10:18PM

Conservatism didn't lose... Neo-conservatism is what has taken a step back. Conservative values are still alive. The people have had to shift to a person that has different political beliefs then their own because they see something more than just another politician.. They see a man with strong family values and sense on dignity that has been lacking in the leader of our country. The Republicans will fight back, when the defeat the neo- con movement.

w| 11.7.08 @ 9:59AM

I was a repulican voter based on fiscal conservatism and small government. You lost me with Bush. Now, unless you ditch the social conservatism bull***t and stop demonizing people who went to college, I wont be back.

Miles Gloriosus| 11.8.08 @ 6:56PM

Neo-conservatism did lose, yet I expect it to again raise its golem-like head soon enough. Those of us who still believe in the country and the constitution have almost as much to fear from the disciples of Leo Strauss as we do from those of Saul Alinsky.

trustsupplier | 4.8.10 @ 1:07AM

thank you for your info!

More Articles by Philip Klein

More Articles From Special Report

Not Ready for Primetime Players

May 17, 2013 | Daniel J. Flynn

The Liberal Union Behind the IRS

May 16, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

Obamacare Implodes

May 15, 2013 | Peter Ferrara

Cumulus Media: Suicide of a Company?

May 14, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

What Those Who Boycott Israel Really Want

May 14, 2013 | Aaron Goldstein

http://spectator.org/archives/2008/11/05/conservatism-can-rise-again

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn|99 comments

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple|117 comments

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg|59 comments

Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report

Mark Tooley|104 comments

Treasure State Treasury

Bill Croke|3 comments

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy|60 comments

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman|16 comments

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

Peter Hannaford|19 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Elijah Harper, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 5.18.13

If Only the Tsar Knew!

F.H. Buckley | 5.18.13

Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn’t Mastermind This Entire Thing

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

UPDATED: IRS Acting Chief Apologizes, But Defends His Actions

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Voter Fraud Affected Election Results in Missouri

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Purple Privacy Push Persists in House Drone Hearing

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.17.13

IRS Director: ‘Some People Call Me Maurice’

Kyle Peterson | 5.17.13

Laughing to Keep From Crying

Ross Kaminsky | 5.17.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy | 5.17.13

The Liberal Union Behind the IRS

Jeffrey Lord | 5.16.13

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn | 5.17.13

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg | 5.17.13

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman | 5.17.13

From Bimbos to Benghazi

Jeffrey Lord | 5.9.13

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

Peter Hannaford | 5.17.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.