Notes From D.R. | Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene

Knowing tops the charts.

I wish conservatives would remember that it’s March 2009, not March 2012.

We’re barely two months into President Obama’s term, and already the American right is acting as though he’s a lame duck. Obama has certainly stumbled out of the gate, and the halo of hope-and-change has dimmed over the last few weeks—but Obama is far from finished.

It’s amazing that the conservatives rejoicing in Obama’s early failures have apparently forgotten how backward President Clinton was in the first two years of his first term, and how he recovered from his early errors. Clinton governed from the left early on, alienating huge swaths of the country with his strident progressivism. In November 1994, the electorate placed a check on Clinton’s collectivism, handing control of the House and Senate to conservative (at the time, anyway) Republicans.

The ‘94 midterms ended up saving Clinton’s Presidency: the 42nd President moved to the center, taking credit for reforming welfare and positioning himself as a reasonable, moderate leader (as opposed to the alleged right-wing extremist Newt Gingrich). Exploiting the public’s aversion to Gingrich and the weaknesses of his elderly Republican opponent, Clinton secured a second term in November 1996.

Obama could also become a two-term President, present appearances notwithstanding. If the economy recovers by 2012, it’s hard to envision voters tossing Obama from power. Even if the economy is in solid but unspectacular condition, a majority of voters could be swayed by the argument that Obama has what it takes to finally bring the economy back to the full strength of previous eras.

It’s not even clear that the Republicans will dominate the 2010 midterms. Surely, the GOP will have some success, but the demographic headwinds that hurt the party in 2008 will still be a factor. The GOP has yet to develop a strategy for wooing over those who don’t like or trust Republicans—and party still seems clueless as to how to win big outside the South.

Yes, we hear of taxpayer anger, calls for tea parties, rage against the socialist machine and all the rest. Yet rage, in and of itself, cannot lead the GOP to victory. The party must explain clearly and coherently how it plans to help average Americans deal with the rough economic tides, as well as the enormous expenses of health care and education.

Maybe there’s some secret GOP plan to secure victory in 2010 and 2012. Maybe RNC Chairman Michael Steele is in a secured location somewhere, hashing out a plan to bring the GOP back to Reagan-era health. Maybe I’ll run into a unicorn on my way to lunch.

It seems the GOP’s philosophy is to let Obama and the Democrats burn themselves out, allowing the elephants will stampede to success—no new ideas or strategies necessary. This philosophy is ludicrous; in fact, I hope it fails.

While I oppose Obama’s effort to transform the US into a larger version of Sweden, I’m not too thrilled about the prospect of Republicans winning by way of Democrat self-destruction. I’d rather see the GOP win by proposing better solutions to America’s problems.

How will America benefit if the Republicans recapture the House, Senate and White House by default? Without a new vision, the party and the country will perish. Absent a positive plan for reasonable reform, the Republicans will inevitably return to the hackerama of the early- and mid-2000s—the same hackerama that led to the backlash of 2006 and 2008.

I haven’t heard too many fresh ideas from the GOP: either I’m going deaf, or the party isn’t expressing those fresh ideas clearly. Where do the Republicans get the idea that the only thing they have to do to regain power is to repeatedly call Obama a socialist? Do they really believe Democrats dominated in ’06 and ‘08 only by demonizing President Bush?

Given a choice between a party with bad ideas and a party that seems to have no ideas, most voters will go for the former. Obama’s spread-the-wealth vision may have more flaws than a rapper has rhymes, but at least it’s a vision. Other than cutting taxes, what are the Republicans proposing?

Sure, it would be nice to see a Republican being sworn in on January 20, 2013. However, if that Republican has no vision and no real plan to actually address America’s ailments, another Democrat will be sworn in on January 20, 2017.

I can’t imagine President Obama inviting William Kristol and Fred Barnes over to the White House anytime soon…

UPDATE: More from Matthew Continetti.

Brad Schaeffer on President Bush’s legacy. (Much, much better than some of the pro-Bush articles written by conservative pundits with many more years in the game.)

Charles Krauthammer on AIG.

Former President Bush signs a book deal.

Reihan Salam on South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford.

Actress Natasha Richardson passes away at 45.

Perhaps the most unfortunate element of the civil war between center-right Republicans and their solidly conservative counterparts is the strain it puts on those who admire figures on both sides of the divide. What do you do if you like both David Frum and Glenn Beck? What if you don’t want to choose between Ross Douthat and Rush Limbaugh?

The conservative movement has always been something of a dysfunctional family, but the strife amongst its members has become unbearable over the past few months. Sometimes it’s not possible to tell who’s supposed to be the black sheep.

The conservative family is like any other extended family. Some children turn out OK, others have troubled lives. Some develop meaningful relationships, others marry bitterness. Some family members adopt different religions, or none at all; some cousins or uncles or nieces alienate others with their lifestyles or career choices.

Right now, the conservative family is in the midst of a vicious feud, one played out on radio shows and magazine covers. Sometimes, the hostility between these family members is too difficult to absorb. It’s devastating to those who love each member of the family.

Rush Limbaugh is generally understood to be the patriarch of this family. Some relatives see him as a warm and wise man, a courageous individual who made the family strong against all odds. Other relatives now see him as limp and tired, an aged crank known for intemperate remarks at inappropriate times (“I hope he fails!”).

Some of Limbaugh’s relatives would like to send him to an assisted living community, where he can live out the rest of his days in comfort while other family members move on with their lives. Yet the relatives who love Limbaugh the most feel there’s nothing wrong with him, and that he’s as strong as he ever was. This has led to rhetorical ruthlessness, with some relatives accusing others of hating the patriarch, and other relatives claiming the relationship between the patriarch and certain family members has become inappropriate.

Now, these relatives scream at each other before vowing never to talk to each other again. Relationships are ruined, bonds are broken, hearts are hurt.

I’d like to believe this family will be able to heal its divisions—but I can’t practice a fictional faith. The rift in the conservative family has been decades in the making. The ties that held centrist and conservative members of the family together were always fairly loose. Since the biggest threat to the family’s safety—Soviet Communism—faded away nearly two decades ago, the family’s relationship has slowly grown more contentious; now, it has become a war without arms.

The conservative house is divided. It may not stand for long. In fact, social circumstances may lead to foreclosure.

A few doors down, there is another house. The family living there is large and diverse. Some members belong to a union, others to groups supporting civil rights and women’s rights. One member of the family opposes abortion. Another family member opposes same-sex marriage. Two family members have differing views on the Second Amendment.

This family spends a lot of money. They have a lot of friends in the press, in Hollywood and in the local university. This family takes care of its own, regardless of whatever scandal some family members might find themselves involved in.

This family may have unusual beliefs and unusual tastes, but it is unified. Members of the family are deeply loyal to each other. They defend each other, work for each other, are willing to lay down their lives for each other. Back in the 1970s and 1980s, kids used to throw eggs at this family’s house—but now, everyone wants to visit.

This family has power and prestige, clout and connections. Famous people married into this family. Even if you can’t stand what this family believes in, you have to admire their unity. This family seems to have it all—one family member is even in the White House!

This is the progressive family. That noise you hear as you walk by their residence is the sound of laughter and cheers. Go by the conservative house, and what do you hear? Shrieking. Slapping. Sobbing.

The conservative/Republican circular firing squad continues, with Ramesh Ponnuru fighting back against an attack by a Washington Times columnist while Thomas Sowell slaps around Rush Limbaugh’s critics on the right. This is perversely funny in the short-term, but damn depressing in the long-term–because the divide between the right and the center-right will inexorably lead to progressives/Democrats having almost unchallenged political dominion in the US, which will lead to the usual problems involved with one-party rule.

Actress/dancer Altovise Davis passes away at 65.

Actor Ron Silver passes away at 62.

If only we had a Rush who was a reformer…

While those of us who admire the work of young conservative writer Ross Douthat are happy with his hiring as an op-ed columnist for the New York Times, we must recognize that Douthat’s new position does little to upset the balance of power on the American right. Douthat’s reformist conservative vision, too often mistaken for RINOism, still doesn’t have a loud voice.

As Jonah Goldberg noted in a March 4 appearance on NPR’s Talk of the Nation, the reformist wing of the right—comprised of such figures as Douthat, David Frum of NewMajority.com, Reihan Salam of The Atlantic and Rod Dreher of Beliefnet.com and the Dallas Morning News–doesn’t have a media platform anywhere near as large as the one upon which Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin stand. Goldberg argued that because of this lack of prominence, these reformers sometimes become shrill in their rhetoric in order to draw attention. (Frum was attacked on numerous conservative Internet forums for the alleged shrillness of his criticism of Rush Limbaugh in Newsweek last week.)

Douthat, Frum, Salam and Dreher have never struck me as shrill types, but their cause would certainly be helped by a higher-profile media forum. While something of the sort couldn’t be established right now due to the current economy, it would be beneficial not only for these reformers but for the nation as a whole if the airwaves had a syndicated talk host who stood in solidarity with these men.

A “reformist Rush” might not appeal to those who have bought into the propaganda that these men are collectively the kinder, gentler version of the Olympia Snowe-Susan Collins-Arnold Schwarzenegger-Arlen Specter faction of the GOP, but he or she would draw the listenership of those who haven’t been thrilled with the Republican Party’s conduct over the past decade. These potential listeners presumably have been alienated by the cacophonous cheerleading Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham and Levin did for the Republicans in the early-2000s, and would be receptive to hearing an alternative conservative message.

A “New Majority” radio personality would be able to explain, in a coherent and entertaining fashion, why it’s so important for the Republican Party to propose new conservative solutions to the problems of education, health care and energy instead of replaying old Reagan lines about government being the problem. He or she would be able to effectively sell the argument that neither party truly believes in limited government, so it makes no sense for one party to falsely proclaim its support for this concept.

A host who adhered to the Grand New Party vision would be skilled enough to debate both traditionalist conservatives and progressives. He or she would convince listeners that the point of reformist conservatism is not to destroy what Reagan built, but to recognize the reality of where the country is now demographically, culturally and politically, and determine a way for conservatism to survive and thrive within this context. A reformist conservative host would acknowledge that, though liberals are often wrong when it comes to prescribing treatment, they are not always wrong when it comes to diagnosing the disease. A radio star of this caliber might not get 22 million listeners, but he or she would attract enough support to be a popular and possibly influential force.

Sure, a reformist host would be smeared as a faux-conservative and squish in some quarters. However, he or she would be able to turn back such attacks, pointing out that such criticisms come from folks who are set in their ways and live in a fantasy world in which it’s still November 1980. Why listen to the old, when one can listen to the new?

Who could play this role? Frum, Douthat, Dreher and Salam are solid speakers, but they’re not showmen. Newt Gingrich, who has embraced the reformist vision in recent years, would certainly be a high-profile name, but perhaps he has too much baggage for listeners to accept him as a voice they could listen to daily.

A potential reformist radio star is RNC Chairman (for now, anyway) Michael Steele, whose sympathies are quite close to the Douthat/Frum/Salam/Dreher vision. Steele has performed flawlessly in his fill-in appearances on the radio programs hosted by Hugh Hewitt and Bill Bennett, and clearly has a knack for the showbiz elements of talk radio. His term as RNC head is scheduled to expire in 2011. If he is not chosen for a second term, and the economy turns around by that time, maybe he could become the syndicated radio star the reformers and the country need. I’d certainly rush to hear such a show.

Race to Witch Mountain tops the charts.

George Will on the Voting Rights Act.