Barack Obama is a disaster for the country because his economics
are straight out of Mussolini’s playbook, his foreign policy is
that of Ramsey Clark, his Justice Department is that of Ramsey
Clark as well, his ethics are pure Chicago thuggishness, his
hostility to Christianity in the public square akin to that of
Madalyn Murray O’Hair, and his ego like Napoleon’s.
Yeah, … and trying to make those complaints will get
conservatives exactly nowhere. Nor will complaints that the
establishment media have put their journalistic ethical manhood
in collective hock, trading in their watchdog roles for not just
a lap dog role where Obama is concerned, but more like lap
dancers for the president while asking him exactly what he wants
them to show him.
Yes, Nancy Pelosi and Pat Leahy are hypocrites and cheaters; and
yes, Barney Frank’s economics are a threat to the republic; and
yes, making “empathy” a criterion for choosing judges is about as
relevant as making calculus skills a criterion for picking a
hockey team.
To all those points, much of Middle America asks “so what?” Why
should that make them pay attention to conservatives instead of
paying attention to dead weirdo musicians and to their own credit
card debts? Oh, much of Middle America will indeed give a passing
thought to conservatives when those conservatives are flaking out
in Argentina, Alaska, or airport assignations. But otherwise,
conservatives just don’t seem relevant.
A huge part of the problem is that our elected leaders don’t seem
to have a clue about how to mobilize conservative grassroots,
much less the general public, behind positive themes or
principled conservative ideals. The number of Republican
congressmen not seriously afflicted with Inside-Baseball-itis can
probably be counted on a broken abacus on which the beads don’t
move. And the congressmen who actually understand that good
principles are good politics, rather than an occasional
tool for political ends, are as rare as the latest confirmed
sighting of a hairy-nosed wombat.
But none of that excuses the rest of us for our failures to win
political battles.
The conservative movement somehow lost its ability to elect
enough of its own to office. The movement certainly lost its
ability to stay connected with enough of the politicians it
helped elect to office. And it — we — clearly failed to
maintain the constructive hold that conservatives once enjoyed on
state and national Republican Party apparatuses.
To understand how bad things are, one need only watch Republicans
in the Senate fumble the chance to win a real public relations
battle concerning the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the
Supreme Court. On every level, polls give conservatives the edge
on issues related to judges. Yet Alabama’s Sen. Jeff Sessions has
been allowed to wage a mostly lonely battle — a valiant and
well-thought-out battle, but still a mostly lonely one — while
most of his colleagues act as if it’s a foregone conclusion that
Sotomayor will be confirmed.
You can’t win by acting as if you can’t win.
And that’s a shame, because if the nomination battled is waged
well, there actually is, or could be, a serious chance, even if
decidedly difficult, to defeat Sotomayor.
But I digress. The point here is that conservatives need to
relearn politics.
Now that’s a tall order. Relearning politics from top to bottom
involves all sorts of campaign technology, media savvy, personal
skills, and myriad other challenges — far too many challenges to
be discussed in one column.
But one fairly simple lesson from past conservative successes can
be emphasized concisely. The lesson is this: To capture the
public’s imagination, a movement needs to push a galvanizing,
positive policy change.
In the late 1970s, a flailing Republican Party rallied around
what became the Kemp-Roth tax-cut plan, along with calls for a
strong defense. In 1994, conservatives rightly embraced the
Contract with America. In 2002 especially, but also in 2004,
conservatives effectively campaigned on the issue of judicial
nominations. And in 2004, it is almost certain that various state
initiatives to outlaw homosexual marriage helped carry President
Bush to re-election while helping save or win seats for a number
of Republicans, conservative or not, who benefitted from high
social-conservative turnout.
In each case, conservatives clearly provided something to vote
for. Yes, it also helps immensely to have something to vote
against. Parties and candidates can win elections on the strength
of being against something or someone bad. But principled
movements can’t elect enough principled politicians to office,
and keep them in office, merely on a negative message. They need
to offer something positive — something either inspirational or
at least deeply felt. Something for people to support.
Pundits, including ones whose names begin with “Q,” need to learn
this lesson too. We may have good reason to stress the negative,
to sound warning bells against bad policies or people, to make
provocative comparisons and points of logic. But if we pundits
focus only on those criticisms of the left, we too fail to make a
case that can keep the broader public engaged beyond the lifespan
of any one particular grievance.
Sure, we occasionally write columns heavy on
policy ideas and
positive themes. But like so many other conservative
activists, we don’t focus enough attention on winning, positive,
prescriptive solutions to current problems.
These solutions do not need to involve active government. They do
need to involve a citizenry that becomes more active in public —
in politics or in very public private-sector leadership.
The Obamites right now are undermining our sovereignty, our
values, our foreign policy stances, our longstanding alliances,
our sanctity of contracts and of private property, our limits on
governmental power, our energy independence, our dollar, and our
long-term national solvency. We need to offer not just a check on
those Obamite efforts but a concrete explanation of what we would
do differently.
Let us therefore pledge ourselves to rallying around positive
themes and proposals — some of which I hope to broach in this
space in weeks to come.
Right now we face a serious struggle for the basic symbols and
practices of the American tradition. Let us demand of each other
that we rise to the challenge.
