Yet it is dangerously Pollyannaish for conservatives to think that the majority of voters did not know they were voting for a big-government nanny state when they cast their ballot for Obama.

Rush is right that McCain’s attempt to wear the mantle of conservatism never really worked, because his lifelong reputation as a “moderate” more intent on reaching compromise than on leading a movement aimed at advancing key principles could not ultimately be overcome. Along the same lines, Sean Hannity’s prescription is that the Republican Party has to identify strong candidates who will articulate strong conservative principles, and they will carry the day. Sean is right, but only half right.

Running articulate, conservative candidates is essential, but not adequate in and of itself. Conservatives have to face the fact that we are losing the battle for the hearts and minds of a critical mass of the American people. And we have to rebuild the movement by re-emphasizing persuasion and education, concerning the fundamental principles that serve as the foundation of conservatism and the founding of the United States.

It is not enough to say, “we believe in limited government, personal liberty, private property, and the principles of the Founding Fathers, so vote for us.” I am convinced that most people don’t even understand these principles or know why they are important. For conservatives to succeed significantly in national elections, we are going to have to continually teach these principles, explain them thoroughly, and make it clear why straying from them can ultimately be so dangerous. This was the genius of Reagan, and no Republican president since him has had it. Reagan never stopped selling conservative principles. He understood them because he internalized them by reading widely, thinking deeply, and communicating (in speech and in writing) about these principles, and he never let up. In politics, just when you think you have won, that’s the time to push even harder.

Democrats have always seemed to understand this basic tenet of the effective acquisition of political power: Never stop campaigning. Bill Clinton’s entire presidency was a campaign; Barack Obama’s re-election campaign will begin on January 21, 2009 (maybe it has already started). Pick a major issue important to the waning Republican administration, however, and look at the horrible failures to teach, explain, and sell their position in a relentless way. Partial privatization of social security should have been a winning issue, but the administration caved at the first sign of a fight. And the Democrats successfully convinced a majority of Americans that Bush was trying to “take away” their social security.

The war in Iraq began with popular support, yet Bush failed to keep selling it, allowing the Democrats to make it into a liability for the GOP that brought the Dems back to power in 2006. If you step back and try to look at them with a little historical perspective, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been resounding successes overall, though not without serious but expected setbacks along the way. The American military, led by President Bush, overthrew two violent, bloody, terribly repressive regimes, liberated more than 50 million people, and killed tens of thousands of terrorists, all with breathtakingly low casualty rates. I am convinced that this administration’s historic unpopularity–before the economic crisis–had more to do with its inexplicable negligence in failing to keep selling the war (yes, a little propaganda–as long as it was true–would have been a good idea) and the Democrats relentless attacks than it had to do with Bush’s alleged incompetence.

My thesis here is not intended to give comfort to liberals or to depress conservatives. Nor am I lining up with so-called moderate conservatives–like David Brooks of the New York Times–who believe that conservatism needs to be reformed or modernized to become competitive again. That’s another way of saying Republicans need to create a new kind of conservatism, essentially liberalism lite, in order to be competitive. My argument could not be further from that. I am saying that the conservative movement needs to realize that we have to re-fight the old battles. No longer is it safe to assume that the principles of limited government, free markets, and individual liberty are widely embraced.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, many of us thought that would be the death knell of the planned economy. Sadly, we were premature. While Russia is looking more and more like the Soviet Union of old, and dictator Hugo Chavez, the darling of the “world community” and of the American left, is nationalizing significant aspects of the Venezuelan economy, the United States has just elected a leftist President and Congress, on the promise of government guaranteed health care, education, prosperity, etc. Then there’s the bail-out, supported by a Republican president and both his would-be successors, not to mention both parties in Congress. Thus we find ourselves in the United States with an “economy czar” who has near-dictatorial authority to spend upwards of a trillion dollars, in the person of Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and his eventual successor.

In future posts, I hope to examine some of the specific reasons for my conclusion in more detail. But if we do not admit that the conservative movement has a challenge before it more serious than the mere packaging of slicker and more attractive candidates, we will be doomed to more failure. And we could be witnessing the dawning of a new era of big-government liberalism that will change America as drastically, or more so, than the New Deal.

Watch this:

http://americaschoicenow.com/

We think that we can wish away the negative consequences of our actions.   Maybe we can hit the delete button on our keyboard and they will disappear!  Like a text message that disolves into cyberspace.

That’s why abortion is such a frustrating issue.  Everyone knows it kills a living human being, but it’s too much to ask, to expect a woman to bear and raise a child that she doesn’t want just because she and her boyfriend “made a mistake” when having a little frolic in the nude.  After all, nobody should be “punished with a baby” (in Mr. Obama’s words) because they forgot to use birth control.

Look at most of today’s parents, the ones with teenage children.  Drive by a high school parking lot during a school day and see all the expensive cars and SUVs parked there.  Those aren’t the teachers’ cars. Those are the students’ rides.  Their precious asses can’t be expected to sit on a school bus, heaven forbid.  And walking to school?  Unthinkable.

Cell phones in high school are a given.  Every high school student has one, and them’s the times we live in. But first and second graders with cell phones?  Common nowadays.

So what?  Kids today are by and large spoiled and pampered.  That’s not news.  No, but it goes hand in hand with the attempt to excise consequences from our lives.  Parents can choose to withhold punishment when their children do wrong, or they can limit their punishments to a toothless talking-to.  If my teenager drives drunk and kills somebody, though, that consequence–an innocent dead person–cannot be wished away, no matter how “understanding” I may try to be.

STD’s (AIDS etc.) are so troubling to us becuase they are by and large easily prevented.  But it just doesn’t seem fair that having sex can lead to terrible illness, and we need to erase the illness (the consequence) without expecting any change in people’s behavior that could prevent the illness in the first place.  We need vaccines, antibiotics, and condoms, but not more responsible behavior.

This brings us to the Wall Street bailout.  If companies make bad loans to unqualified recipients because of political correctness (increased minority home ownership goals, e.g.), the urging of bureaucrats, or short-sighted folly (absolute faith that real estate values will keep going up), they are taking on a risk that the loans will go bad, and they are hoping for a reward that the loans will be repaid on time.

If the loans succeed and retain their value, they can be sold for gain or retained for the income they will generate.  That’s fine.

If the loans can’t be repaid and the values of the homes supporting those mortgages also tank, they may become worth much less, and the lending institution takes a loss.

If we believe in the free market, the lending institution gets to enjoy the benefit of their investments and loans when they work out.  Why, then, should they not bear the burden when they don’t work out.  Why do we want to privatize the reward and socialize the risk? 

We want to wipe away, wish away, delete by magic the negative consequences of the risks taken by individuals and firms in the marketplace of mortgage lending.  After all, they didn’t mean for things to go bad.  They thought real estate values would continue to rise. They meant well by trying to expand home ownership. Why should they be punished for all these good intentions by taking a financial loss?  Let’s just abort the consequence of their actions, to the tune of $700 billion of somebody else’s money.

PASTOR RICK WARREN: At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is, is above my pay grade.

Pelosi:

REP. PELOSI: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator–St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child–first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There’s very clear distinctions. This isn’t about abortion on demand, it’s about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and–to–that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins.

Nancy Pelosi is frighteningly air-headed if she thinks the Catholic Church’s teaching on abortion is at all ambiguous.   Would Tim Russert have hit back a little harder on this? I would like to thnk so.

She has to twist herself into a pretzel to defend Obama’s position in favor of virtual infanticide, and to defend the Veep on the ticket, Biden, whom the media have told us ad nauseam in recent days is a “Catholic.”  Another pro-abortion, liberal Catholic. 

Furthermore, big government programs are funded coercively via taxation.  And a key element of private charity is totally absent: the benefit that giving brings to the giver, not just to the recipient.  Conservatives, especially those religiously inclined, realize that giving to worthwhile causes elevates and ennobles the giver.  By such giving, we live out Christ’s command to provide for the “least” of His brothers and sisters.   The personal fulfillment that one derives from voluntarily giving one’s own treasure, time, and talent to another is not possible through taxation, where one has no choice but to “give.”