LIBERALISM A HOUSE OF CARDS
Now that we no longer have George Bush to kick around (Dems are still trying but the attempt is dying on the vine) the public seems increasingly aware of liberalism's bankrupt political ideology. Bill Kristol claims that liberalism's rise the last four years represents an interlude from Reaganism instead of a liberal intonation:
The stimulus hasn't worked. Cap-and-trade and health care reform are in trouble. The can't-we-all-get-along foreign policy isn't leading to a more peaceful world. And the administration seems to have no idea what to do about Guantánamo.
Congressional Democrats are nervous. Even Obama's media base is concerned. At the end of last week, three leading Obamaphiles offered their lamentations. "The fact is, Obama may be blowing a major opportunity for reform," worried Joe Klein. "There's now a real risk that President Obama will find himself caught in a political-economic trap," warned Paul Krugman. "Failure. Overwhelming, amazing failure," was David Brooks's take on the administration's effort to deal with health care inflation--something the president is (according to Brooks) "fervently committed to reducing."
Why such long faces? Because they realize that, despite the financial meltdown on the Bush administration's watch and the errors of omission and commission by the GOP over the last decade, the American public hasn't fundamentally rethought their turn in 1980 away from big government liberalism.
Gallup reports, "Thus far in 2009, 40 percent of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35 percent as moderate, and 21 percent as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004." This despite two decisive Democratic election victories in the intervening years. Gallup also reported that 39 percent of Americans say their political views have become more conservative in recent years. Only 18 percent say they've grown more liberal.
Similarly, a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll had Americans favoring smaller government with fewer services to a larger government with more services by 54 to 41 percent--a slightly more conservative result than in 2004. As Michael Barone summarizes the situation, "Americans seem to be recoiling against big government when it threatens to become a reality rather than a campaign promise."
If Kristol pegs the climate accurately, Republicans can use this opportunistic moment to spawn a continuance of the conservative revolution. They must, however, find a way to rally around leadership. At this point Republicans really do stand as the big tent party. Whereas Dems inherently intimidate and bully nonconformists into submission. Big tents house lots of opinions and lots of opinions can get a bit cacophonous.
Past political conservative leaders such as Newt Gingrich and the Gipper, keyed off of two natural human motivators. First of all they engendered a tremendous sense of pride and hope for the future by zealously appealing to our great national heritage. Both made us feel good about our spiritual ancestry. These men vicariously sounded forth our forefather's cry for liberty and appealed to our recent father's overwhelming destruction of fascism.
Second, both Gingrich and Gipper judiciously set forth major, yet limited fundamentals of conservatism. They steered us through the muddy waters of multifarious jots and tittles by shining a narrow, highly visible light of conservative's core. This also explains Sarah Palin's continued popularity among conservatives. She incarnates conservatism's basic principles. Where Gingrich philosophizes, Palin functionalizes. She makes conservatism work. I'm not endorsing Sarah Palin here, if indeed she needs a future endorsement. I'm simply illustrating a point about conservative values. And true conservative politics by nature chases away the moderate little foxes who threaten to destroy the vineyard.











