This story in TIME is something of a mixed bag. I really could do without the manipulated cover shot of Reagan shedding a tear...although, one does have to think Reagan would agree with the sentiment expressed in this paragraph:But everything that Reagan said in 1985 about "the other side" could easily apply to the conservatives of 2007. They are handcuffed to a political party that looks unsettlingly like the Democrats did in the 1980s, one that is more a collection of interest groups than ideas, recognizable more by its campaign tactics than its philosophy. The principles that propelled the movement have either run their course, or run aground, or been abandoned by Reagan's legatees. Government is not only bigger and more expensive than it was when George W. Bush took office, but its reach is also longer, thanks to the broad new powers it has claimed as necessary to protect the homeland. It's true that Reagan didn't live up to everything he promised: he campaigned on smaller government, fiscal discipline and religious values, while his presidency brought us a larger government and a soaring deficit. But Bush's apostasies are more extravagant by just about any measure you pick.Conservatives and their organizations have gotten intellectually lazy since the Age of Reagan. Instead of winning debates on ideas, conservative organizations seem to relish in opportunities to cut off the symbolic heads of the political enemies from our own party (yea, I'm looking at you COASTers). We have a LOT of work to do and it seems to me as if the conservative movement has lost its edge, the happy warrior that could engage in the struggle that is American culture and principles. We used to win these debates based on the merits of our arguments, now we're happy with taking it out on a cake.
There is enough to disagree with in the article. Let's take this bit, for example:
In this environment, nobody looks good if you have an R by your name. It doesn't matter who you are," says a Republican campaign consultant in the Midwest. "I don't see how that changes between now and Election Day. It's the war; it's huge. It's just huge."I'm not buying that this is an actual Republican campaign consultant from the Midwest. It isn't the war that caused Republicans from the midwest to lose, it was the corruption. And quite frankly, any analysis that tells you differently is not to be trusted.
Again, if you're going to be the Party of Ideas, you have to have some. And then, you have to live up to the principles that you support. If you're going to take the high road on moral and social issues, you had better have a spotless record and a strong constitution for ethical behavior.
Then there is this brand of idiocy:
"Conservatives are divided on the Iraq war, but there is a growing feeling it was a mistake," says longtime conservative activist and fund-raiser Richard Viguerie. "It's not a Ronald Reagan type of idea to ride on our white horse around the world trying to save it militarily. Ronald Reagan won the cold war by bankrupting the Soviet Union. No planes flew. No tanks rolled. No armies marched."Ah, the Pat Buchannon wing of the conservative movement gets its time in the spotlight... Republicans didn't lose because they weren't isolationists. Hey, Richard, if we stick our heads in the proverbial sand, the Islamofascist enemy that we face will hack it right off. Not to mention the fact that we are facing a global economy...if America is to continue to prosper, we must continue to engage the world.
But the right's view of McCain changed when he ran for President in 2000. What bothered conservatives wasn't just the fact that he challenged the Anointed One in a party that treats its primaries like a royal accession. It was also the glee with which he went after all its institutions, from the special interests to the theocrats to Big Business. "Remember that the Establishment is against us," he exulted after winning the New Hampshire primary. "This is an insurgency campaign, and I'm Luke Skywalker." Then again, as both Reagan and Goldwater showed, there is nothing more fundamentally conservative than an insurgency.Ugh...this is just too much crazy talk. You get the idea, the article has its flaws.
One last thought on a related idea: conservatives are supposed to be okay with the idea that change doesn't happen overnight. It seems to me as if today's conservative movement gets too easily discouraged and ultimately prefer a loss of yardage instead of taking the ball a few yeards closer to the first down. We'll never score, if we don't move the ball forward. Barry Goldwater scolded conservatives to "get to work" and it seems as if we are about due for another such admonition.
