In a recent Washington Post article titled “A Good Time to be a Conservative”; Mr. Kristol made a bold assumption, claiming the “center of gravity” within the Republican Party would shift farther to the right, propelled in that direction by a collection of conservative personalities from beyond the Beltway. Indicating a lack of faith in the G.O.P.’s elected leadership, Kristol says: “Even if Republicans pick up the House in 2010, the party's big ideas and themes for the 2012 presidential race will probably not emanate from Capitol Hill. The center of gravity, I suspect, will instead lie with individuals such as Palin and Huckabee and Gingrich, media personalities like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, and activists at town halls and tea parties. Some will lament this -- but over the past year, as those voices have dominated, conservatism has done pretty well in the body politic, and Republicans have narrowed the gap with Democrats in test ballots.” Kristol’s logic is derived from two polls. First, the Gallup Poll of October 26, 2009 that puts the percentage of Americans identifying themselves as conservatives at 40 percent, and an earlier Rasmussen Poll indicating that the only 2012 Republican presidential prospects polling double digits are Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. When one looks inside the numbers, it would appear that there are more than a few flaws in Mr. Kristol’s math and intuitive reasoning.

The Gallup results show that the net increase in the percentage of people identifying as conservatives had taken place within that subset of the electorate classified as independents. Quoting Gallup: “Changes among political independents appear to be the main reason the percentage of conservatives has increased nationally over the past year: the 35% of independents describing their views as conservative in 2009 is up from 29% in 2008. By contrast, among Republicans and Democrats, the percentage who are "conservative" has increased by one point each.” In spite of the shift in independents identifying as conservatives, the actual percentage of voters who identify with the G.O.P., which is the defacto conservative party, has fallen to historical lows. The latest political identification polling results available on Pollster.com reveals that just 25 percent of those polled identify themselves as Republicans. That percentage improves when registered and likely voters are polled, but the G.O.P. still trails the Democrats here as well. To date, had independents firmly embraced the principles of the conservative movement generally or the G.O.P. in particular, the percentage of voters identifying as Republicans would show a marked increase and so far that is not the case. I would argue that the shift to the right among independent voters is far from solid and is conditional, being subject to a set of factors that will likely change by the time of the 2012 election. In fact an even newer Gallup Poll reveals just how transient independent political attitudes actually are. That poll: “Race for 2010 Remains Close; Democrats Recover Slight Lead”, which came out on December 14 states: “The current generic-ballot results are similar to those Gallup found in July and October of this year, and indicate that the Republican gain observed just after the Nov. 3 elections was not sustained. Shifts in candidate preference for Congress typically occur primarily among independents, whose "unanchored" status makes them much more vulnerable to short-term events in the political environment than are those who claim allegiance to either major party.” I would go beyond the latest Gallup findings to suggest that the number of independents identifying as conservatives will decrease proportionately to the degree to which the G.O.P. moves to the right, especially if the Republican Party finds its public image welded to the personalities of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin or the Tea Party crowd.

In his reliance on the results of the above cited Rasmussen Poll, Mr. Kristol is in effect betting the house on a collection of would be candidates that, in spite of polling in the double digits, leave much to be desired when it actually comes to getting elected. Kristol is one of Sarah Palin’s most passionate cheerleaders, but in suggesting that the future of the conservative movement might lie in the fortunes of Ms. Palin, he seems to be gambling on a horse not worth the wager. Mid-December poll results from both Pollster.com and Polling Report.com show Palin registering an unfavorable rating of 48 percent. An ABC poll of November 15^th showed that 53 percent of respondents would not vote for Palin with 60 percent saying she was not qualified to be president. More damaging still is a CBS poll of November 15, which revealed that 62 percent of those Republicans polled felt that Palin lacked the ability to be an effective president. At the time of Palin’s resignation from elected office, Republican strategist Mike Murphy opined: “If the Sarah Palin we perceive today wins the nomination in 2012, the G.O.P. will lose. Most Americans don’t think Palin is ready to be President. The base loving you is not enough to get you elected.” Conservative columnist Michael Gerson, reflecting on Palin’s resignation said: “She really alienated women and the college educated on both coasts and that is not how you rebuild the Republican Party.” The reality is that the Republican Party cannot hope to win without the support of independent voters, whom Palin clearly alienates and whose ranks are, according to Pew Research, now at a seventy-year high.  Recently, two Republican heavyweights: Haley Barbour, former Chairman of the RNC, and Congressman Eric Cantor (R-VA) both declined to endorse a 2012 Palin presidential bid when they appeared on MSNBC and Fox News.

In spite of the fact that Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have double-digit support among Republicans, none of them breaks a 40 percent favorability rating among voters generally, except Huckabee. However, Huckabee’s 40 percent approval rating was registered before Maurice Clemmons, an inmate pardoned by Huckabee, gunned down four police officers in late November. That said, we might see a decline in Huckabee’s overall standing in the polls.  Poll numbers aside, in the 2008 Republican primaries, Huckabee was only able to win in the south and thus his viability as a national candidate is questionable. Furthermore, Huckabee’s past equivocation on the topic of evolution works to his detriment when it comes to appealing to that large segment of the population that believes in science as well as religion. Mitt Romney, as a result of his Mormon faith, had problems with the evangelical base of the G.O.P., which plays a crucial role in the early primary states of Iowa and South Carolina. Moreover, Romney may well run into formidable headwinds from the far right as a result of his relatively moderate approach to politics and policy positions. Newt Gingrich, who’s favorable ratings are the lowest, at 14 percent, has a closet full of skeletons of his own which led in 1998 to his stepping down as the Speaker of the House and his departure from Congress altogether.  Needless to say these issues will surely be resurrected and they will be in the forefront of the debate in the event that Gingrich becomes a serious presidential contender.

It is in his rather absurd suggestion that the G.O.P.’s center of gravity might travel further to the right as a function of the influence of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or the Tea Party Movement, that Kristol, having slipped his moorings to reality, has embarked on what can only be considered a voyage of political fantasy. Neither Limbaugh nor Beck are particularly compelling personalities beyond the realm of their audience. Both traffic in the sensational, often blurring the lines between fact and fiction with their primary purpose being incendiary commentary rather than legitimate hard news analysis. The media watchdog, Media Matters for America has compiled fifty-three pages of citations detailing Limbaugh’s distortion of facts or their deliberate misrepresentation for political purposes. For Glenn Beck there are forty-two pages. The latest NBC/WSJ poll (June 2009), which I was able to find on Limbaugh’s popularity, showed that 50 percent of those responding viewed him in a negative light. A similar poll in September showed Glenn Beck registering a positive rating of just 25 percent. In spite of the fact that both Limbaugh and Beck have a committed following, accurately measuring the true size and composition of their respective audiences and the extent to which they actually reflect more than a thin slice of this country’s political spectrum is almost impossible. Paul Farhi of the Washington Post attempted to plumb the length and breadth of Limbaugh’s audience and therefore his influence, in a March 2009 article: “Limbaugh's Audience Size? It's Largely Up in the Air.” Relying on interviews with media industry sources, Farhi claims that Limbaugh’s audience fluctuates between 14 to 30 million, depending on the issues of the day. Quoting Michael Harrison of “Talkers Magazine”, Farhi puts Limbaugh’s average audience at 14.25 million listeners per week, which is just under 5 percent of the population. Glenn Beck’s audience is far smaller and his largest audience to date was roughly 3.4 million viewers on September 15, 2009, which amounts to just 1.1 percent of the population. 

When it comes to the Tea Party Movement, it is equally difficult in coming to an agreement as to just how many people are involved here and to what extent they really reflect more than a microcosm of American political life. According to the conservative Americans for Tax Reform, a pro-Tea Party group, just 578,000 people participated in the 2009 April Tax Day Protests. Their website does not display figures for the July 4^th protests nor does FreedomWorks.com or any other pro-Tea Party website that I came across. The largest number I remember seeing is in the neighborhood of 215,000 protestors. Regarding the September 12^th Washington D.C. protest rally, Talking Points Memo described the turnout as follows: “FreedomWorks, the main organizers of the Tea Party event in Washington this past weekend, has dramatically lowered its estimate for the size of the crowd at the event from 1.5 million, a number the group now concedes was a mistake, to between 600,000 and 800,000 people -- though this is still substantially more than the tens of thousands that most mainstream media outlets have estimated, and which FreedomWorks wholeheartedly rejects.” Thus if we add up the total attendence at all three Tea Parties, using the higher estimates, we come up with a gross attendence of roughly 1.6 million or just one half of one percent of the population.

What the math reveals is that the actual number of people who either participate in Tea Parties or who listen to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, presumably many do both, is a rather small percentage of the overall population, even considering that portion that would identify as conservative. That said, its a bit of a strectch to assume that such a statistically insignificant number of people is either enough to move the Republican Party further to the right or that it is likely to do so.

There is one final flaw in Kristol’s analysis and that is his ignoring the rising tide of moderates within the party that are opposing any suggestion that the G.O.P. needs to be purified of any moderate tendencies via litmus tests that even Ronald Reagan would fail, that political orthodoxy should be the face of the G.O.P. or that Republicans can only win elections when they embrace ultra conservative ideas. The now formidable array of moderates seeking to stem any drift to the far right encompasses a spectrum of Republican notables from sitting Senators to strategists and political commentators including: Olympia Snowe, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Bob Inglis, Mickey Edwards,  Christie Todd Whitman, Newt Gingrich, Tom Ridge, Colin Powell, David Frum, Andrew Sullivan, Kathleen Parker and a host of Republican strategists. Gingrich, appearing on Meet the Press (5/24/09) stated that the G.O.P. has to be “broad enough to incorporate divergent views and can’t be purged to the smallest conservative base.” Tom Ridge stated that the G.O.P. “needs to be less shrill and less condeming of those who don’t hew to a far right view.” Following the departure of Arlen Specter from the Republican Party, Olympia Snowe, in a New York Times editorial opined: “There is no plausible scenario under which Republicans can grow into a majority while shrinking our ideological confines and contiuing to retract into a regional party. Ideological purity is not the ticket back to the promised land of  governing majorities.” At an April debate over the future of the G.O.P. Lindsey Graham made the following observation: “We are not losing blue states and shrinking as a party because we are not conservative enough. If we pursue a party that has no place for someone who agrees with me 70 percent of the time, that is based on an ideological purity test rather than a coalition test, then we are going to keep losing.” I could go on, but anyone who has been paying any attention to the civil war within the Republican Party knows that there are more than enough voices and intelligent arguments being made to more than call into question the logic and wisdom of people like Bill Kristol and their fanciful notions that the redemption of the G.O.P. lies in the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or the rank and file Tea Party participant. All one has to do is examine the results of the 2009 off-year elections and what is evident is that where Republicans won elections, in the gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey, they did so by running moderate campaigns that played to the centrist voter. In contrast, the great and financially costly effort by the far right in trying to influence the congressional election in New York’s 23^rd Electoral District resulted in a conservative failure with a Democrat capturing a seat held by the G.O.P. since as far back as the Civil War.

Over the course of his career, William Kristol is a man who has backed more political losers and also-rans than winners and it would be nothing less than disastrous for the Republican Party to heed his advice or put any stock in his predictions. Kristol worked for former Secretary of Education William Bennet, the voice of personal responsibility during the Reagan Administration, who subsequently lost much of his credibility when he admitted to losing over a million dollars in Las Vegas slot machines. He was Vice President Qualye’s Chief of Staff.  Kristol managed the failed Senatorial campaign of Alan Keyes in 1988 and Keyes would go on to fail twice more in seeking a seat in the Senate and then two more times when running for president. Kristol championed the pardon of Scooter Libby and the nomination of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate, a decision that McCain’s staffers would later admit to be his single biggest mistake. But it is in an examination of Kristol’s unabashed cheerleading for the War in Iraq that his predictive abilities are revealed to be so totally lacking. It was Kristol who predicted that the removal of Saddam Hussein from power would unleash a chain reaction of democratic reform across the Middle East that to date has failed to materialize.

Bill Kristol represents that desperate sort of conservative that can’t abide the dynamics of political change wrought by the election of Barack Obama. Likewise, the relatively rapid decline in the influence of Neoconservatives since the 2004 election can’t bring him much joy either. To my mind, Bill Kristol falls into that category within the Conservative Movement that is firmly wedded to the notion that their orthodox ideology is the only one acceptable for America and that anything else is either politically irrelevant or treasonous.  Kristol’s faulty logic gives rise to the notion that he is engaged more in wishful thinking than objective political analysis. His prediction as to future direction of the G.O.P. amounts to nothing more than a political “Hail Mary pass” in hoping beyond hope, that somehow or other the Republican Party can be moved to embrace the orthodoxy of the far right.  In my opinion, having watched him over the past decade and read his articles, he seems to be increasingly assuming the role of a shill for ultra conservative ideas, becoming as a result less objective in his political analysis. Republicans would be well advised to part company with Mr. Kristol, least they find themselves facing a future of continued electoral defeat and a decline in the party’s appeal among that now indispensable factor in American politics, the unaligned independent voter.

Steven J. Gulitti

New York City

12/19/2009

Regrettably the Obama Administration has gotten off to a sloppy start both in letting House Democrats take the lead in crafting the stimulus plan and in the tax related problems surrounding several high level appointees. But make no mistake about it; these missteps are not fatal and will not magically vindicate the failed policies of the past. They will not by default somehow lead to the immediate resurrection conservative ideology and their shelf life in the news cycle will be relatively short. If all one did was to heed the political babble of the Hannitys, Limbaughs and Malkins of the world one would think that we had arrived at Jimmy Carter redux but that is emphatically not the case. The folly of such sentiment is apparent in a last minute plea by Dick Morris via The National Republican Trust PAC entitled: “Obama Close to Big Defeat, Help Make It Happen”. The alarm is sounded anew about the supposed threat of “socialism” and among other things, the dredging up once again of Jeremiah Wright as if he has anything to do with the current administration. If one were to only set his or her dial to the right side of the political spectrum one would believe that the election of Barack Obama was some sort of aberration, a visitation if you will, on the American body politic. One of the more interesting outcomes of the last election is the extent to which the conservative punditry has parted company with Congressional Republicans. Conservative commentary has been relentless in its incessant rant about the slippery slope of economic socialization and its penchant for dogmatic purity in a day and age when practical solutions trump ideological debate. In contrast, Republicans on Capitol Hill have embraced the notion of the stimulus plan even while arguing about particular elements contained therein.  

On the verge of a resolution of the stimulus package, conservative commentator David Brooks was quick to point out that Republican opposition to the bill was more in the realm of legislative particulars with ideological arguments largely absent from the discussion. To quote Brooks, “If the stimulus fails, Republicans don’t want their name on it.” Having insisted on a partial socialization of the financial sector during the Bush Administration’s bank bailout the GOP is ideologically hobbled in the midst of the present discussion as to whether or not the government should be involved in stepping in to help right a floundering economy. With the Republican Party losing ground across a large swath of the political landscape, obstructionism at this point in time will only serve to further hinder the GOP in the next election cycle. In spite of the apparent fact that Congressional Democrats have yet to get the message that the public is fed up with earmarks and spending for esoteric pet projects, Republicans on the Hill know that there is no political cover in obstructionism. As the bill winds its way through the Senate, moderate Republicans are showing support and that should be all that is needed to reach a workable compromise.  That said Republicans on Capitol Hill have admirably stood up to the notion of wasteful spending even if that portion of the bill characterized as such amounts to a relatively small sum of the total spending. Moreover, Republicans have been right on the mark in pointing out the lack of stimulus inherent in spending that is two to three years out in the bill. In the final analysis on November 4th the American people voted for a new direction in the American political economy and with that there comes an implicit increased involvement of government in economic activity. Barack Obama may be off to a rocky if not sloppy start, but a new course has most assuredly been charted and fundamentally, Congressional Republicans, if not the conservative talking class are on board for the ride.

Steven J. Gulitti

NYC

February 6, 2009

In the weeks leading up to the 2008 elections, while conservative radio and television talk show hosts were hoping beyond hope for some narrowing of the gap between McCain and Obama, more serious conservative thinkers were arguing that a return to the political “wilderness” could do the Republican Party a world of good in helping to chart a new path to future electoral success. In the months that have elapsed since the election of Barack Obama I have monitored all manner of editorials and opinion pieces on the right. For the most part the post mortems revolve around whether the Republican Party should move further to the right or whether it should embark on some degree of ideological reform so as to reach out to Hispanics, Blacks and the working class in an effort to broaden its’ political appeal. The majority of opinion favors a “return to the principles of Ronald Reagan”. There has been a wholesale rejection of the Bush Administration and the candidacy of John McCain as representing a self-defeating deviation from the core principles of the Reagan years. Absent from the discussion is the question of to what extent are the essential principles of the Republican Party still relevant and valid in this day and age.

First and foremost is the penchant in conservative ideology for limited government, but to what extent is limited government a viable option in a global world where many problems are national or international in scope. To what extent can the American people reasonably expect state and local government to effectively address issues of terrorism, economic dislocation or healthcare? Does anyone realistically expect that we can return to the age of Calvin Coolidge? Conservative historian Paul Johnson points out that the rise of big government in the West is the result of the institutionalization of modern warfare and does not stem from liberal politics. Conservative columnist David Brooks has pointed out that due to the nature of problems facing America in the 21st century; limited government is just not an option. Even the Neocon William Kristol stated in a recent column:” So talk of small government may be music to conservative ears, but it’s not to the public as a whole.”

To what extent does an overemphasis on free market principles hold any appeal in the midst of the current economic maelstrom? While I am all in favor of a functioning free market where it is proven to be effective, there are more than a few examples as to where it has been an abject failure. Healthcare is the point on the political landscape where conservatives have chosen to draw a line in the sand, the crossing of which will inevitably lead to a “slide into European Socialism”. That our present healthcare system is failing to provide adequate coverage is an established fact. Along with the “socialist threat” a chief conservative opposition to universal health coverage is that the American people don’t want a government official to stand between them and their doctors. What we have instead are insurance company and HMO bureaucrats standing between the people and their healthcare providers while the HMOs and the drug companies reap enormous profits while our ranking in world healthcare continues to decline relative to nationalized systems. We are the only advanced country without universal healthcare, which means that the cost of healthcare has to be priced into every American product and service. This further impedes our competitiveness in a global economy while at the same time it contributes to the image of America as a socially backward country.

The debacle in the housing and financial markets borne of deregulation started in the Clinton years and made all the more perilous during the Bush Administration has put the country on a course that could lead to a prolonged recession if not a depression. Alan Greenspan himself admitted that the very basis of deregulation was based on a “flaw” of having overestimated the free markets’ ability to self correct, stating in his own words that the: “whole intellectual edifice collapsed in the summer of last year.” Republicans continue to stress the virtues of the free market in spite of the fact that House Republicans insisted on what amounts to a partial socialization of the banking system as a quid-pro-quo in their support for the financial bailout.  In their touting of free market economic theories Republicans ignore the established fact that over the past 60 years the economy has performed better under Democratic Administrations as has been pointed out by Princeton political economist Larry Bartels in his new book “Unequal Democracy”. Government statistics have further shown that even the among the rich, the amount of economic remuneration received when Democrats are in office is only marginally less than that received during Republican administrations thereby undermining the conservative claim that taxing the wealthiest hurts the economy. From the trickle down policies of Nixon to supply side economics of Ronald Reagan to the trickle down of George W. Bush, Republican tax policies have led to a shift of the tax burden from wealth to labor creating the largest disparities in income between classes since the 1920s.

In the controversy surrounding the auto industry bailout one conservative after another has called into question the use of taxpayer funds to bailout Detroit while touting the “success” of foreign automakers in the South as an example of the benefits of a properly functioning free market. Absent from the discussion is the fact that billions of taxpayer dollars were spent in the Sunbelt to lure Japanese and German carmakers to the region as well as the fact that those companies are aided in the process of capital formation in their home economies by not having to pay for healthcare in a nationalized system. James Womack of the Lean Enterprise Institute has gone so far as to say that if it were not for the legacy healthcare costs Detroit would be price competitive with foreign carmakers. I suspect that what was really behind the opposition of most conservatives to bailing out Detroit is a desire to cripple the United Auto Workers and further impede the union movement before the Employee Free Choice Act resurfaces in Congress this year. The prospect of 57 million American workers finally achieving union recognition is not on the agenda of the GOP in spite of its supposed desire to reach out to working Americans.

In opposing government intervention in times of economic crisis, Republicans are ignoring the traditional role of the Federal government in fostering economic development that goes back in an unbroken line to the early nineteenth century. Republicans continue to tout the virtues of unregulated free market economics at a time of grave danger regardless of the historical fact that the Great Depression has proved otherwise. I would say that it is highly significant that at the 2009 annual meeting of the American Economic Association there has been a wholesale rejection of Reagan era economic principles with virtually all of those present endorsing greater government involvement in the economy via the levers of public spending and, that spending should play a greater role than tax cuts in the upcoming stimulus package.  In calling for significant and sustained federal assistance in dealing with the current crisis, conservative economist Ben Stein has said: “The private sector is the patient, not the doctor.” 

The cherished conservative wedge issues of “Guns, Gays and God” proved to be non issues in the 2008 election due to both the economic crisis and their declining salience among the non evangelical population at large. The younger the electoral age bracket, the less opposition there is to the rights of gays to marry, even among those voters who identify themselves as Republican. While three states voted against allowing same sex marriage, three states defeated statewide initiatives to ban abortion. Likewise this holiday season saw the issue of the “War on Christmas” as having far less of a media impact than it has had in recent years. To paraphrase Congressional Quarterly’s Jonathan Allen: “The cultural wars are over”. The population as a whole has moved on from the three major conservative wedge issues thereby rendering them far less meaningful in the future.

Even in what had heretofore been the strong suit of the Republican Party, national security, there is evidence of an unraveling. The Republicans have bet the house that the tactical success of the troop surge in Iraq would somehow make up for the fact that we never had a coherent strategy for the war or that the war itself is an unnecessary detour in the wider war on Islamic terror. More than one National Intelligence Estimate revealed that Al Qaeda never made up more than 5 or 7 percent of the insurgents in country and that Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia was but a copycat organization that is indigenous to Iraq contradicting the mantra that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. The last N.I.E. dealing with the subject stated that Al Qaeda had reconstituted itself in the Northwest of Pakistan with an August 2008 follow on report stating that the enemy was more secure and more potent than in September of 2001. In a recently published book, “The Inheritance”, David Sanger has pointed out that while we have been bogged down in Iraq, Iran and China have grown stronger; North Korea has gone from zero nuclear warheads to several; Russia is resurgent and the Pakistan / Afghanistan region has grown dangerously unstable. Domestically we have failed to commit funding to enhancing homeland security by ensuring the safety of chemical plants, ports, railways, water supplies and the power grid. We should all be mindful that the 9/11 terrorists turned available American resources into WMDs and that unprotected chlorine plants or railway tank cars carrying chemicals are as potentially dangerous as airplanes. While President Bush likes to point out that since 9/11 we have not had to endure another attack on American soil, the number of terrorist attacks worldwide has skyrocketed since the invasion of Iraq. If this country is subject to another attack it will not directly be the result of Democrats controlling Washington but may very well be the result of a fundamentally misguided Bush era national security and foreign policy legacy.

Controversy and conflict among conservative thinkers reveals just how much trouble the Republican Party could be in over the near term. The validity of its’ core ideals may point to even greater troubles over the long term. From Fred Barnes to William Kristol to Michelle Bernard there have been calls for a new direction and an adjustment of conservative principles while ultraconservative Grover Norquist has said that calls for reform: “Will be cheerfully ignored.” Ms. Bernard has gone so far as to say that the Republican Party has shrunk to a regional party centered in the South and that it lost the 2008 election: “Because its message was disconnected from the majority of Americans.” But is it the message or the principals upon which the message is based that has given rise to this electoral disconnect? Fred Barnes, of the conservative “Weekly Standard”, has said that conservative principles must be adjusted so as to ensure election victories in the future but how far can you travel from your core beliefs before those beliefs become meaningless? The unprecedented government intrusion into the financial system last fall, with Republicans insisting on a partial government equity stake in banking, shows just how far the party’s’ policies have strayed from the twin ideological tenants of free market economics and limited government. This policy departure has in effect eroded the validity of these two very basic conservative concepts. With the exception of arguing what the role of tax policy should be in the stimulus package, the likely Republican acquiescence to Barack Obama’s recovery program will mark a significant shift from the ideas of Ronal Reagan. You certainly don’t hear too much talk lately about “government as being the problem”, especially among Republicans. Quoting conservative Rich Lowry: “The twenty-five year run of free markets, free trade and deregulation are over. We are already into a paradigm shift.”

Many conservatives that I know are hoping that Barack Obama will be a one term President and that as if by magic, the Republican Party will find electoral salvation in: “a return to the principles of Ronald Reagan.” It goes without saying that a channeling of the memories of Reagan into the present political environment would be about as effective as Sarah Palin’s constant rant about Obama being a “socialist” in upending the Democrats. The double whammy of the Wall Street meltdown and the multibillion-dollar misadventure in Iraq will be to the Republicans of this century what the inability to foresee and respond to the Great Depression was to the GOP in the last. While the Republicans can certainly win elections in environments where voters seek to punish the Democrats as opposed to embracing Republican ideas, the GOP could very well find itself relegated to running on the platform that it can better manage government than in winning elections by offering positions that represent an ideological change of course. This was the lot of the Republicans in the postwar period up until the election of Ronald Reagan. For the GOP the journey to the wilderness could be a long one, quite possibly as long as a generation.

Steven J. Gulitti

N.Y.C.

12 January 2009