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

Bobby Jindal on health-care reform.

Stephen Richer on whether the GOP can make a comeback among college students.

John Hawkins subtly warns Sarah Palin not to form a third party.

Benjamin Sarlin on Newt Gingrich’s efforts to reach out to Latino voters.

Fred Barnes, Thomas Sowell, Rich Lowry, William Kristol and David Brooks on President Obama.

John Avlon on Obama Derangement Syndrome.

Ross Douthat on Judge Sonia Sotomayor and the debate over certain forms of affirmative action.

Fred Barnes on President Obama’s rookie errors.

David Boies on the federal lawsuit attempting to have California’s Proposition 8 struck down on equal-protection grounds.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince tops the charts.

If conservatism is to regain its much-diminished presence in this country, we must find a way to extend the reach of conservatism into America’s major cities.

The most disturbing political development of the last few decades has been the expansion of the control that the Democratic Party has over the major cities—cities that could use some conservative solutions to their chronic problems. It is appalling that so many major cities cannot hear the conservative message.

Stripped to its essence, conservatism is about revival: revival of the economy through tax reduction, revival of the educational system through choice-based competition, revival of the populace’s sense of safety through crime reduction. This is a message that should resonate with the major cities—but it does not.

This situation is potentially fatal for the country. If Democratic policies (which effectively trap the urban poor in failing public schools and encourage more and more reliance upon government) encourage dependence and Republican policies encourage independence, then the current status quo–hostility to Republican ideas in the major cities—is a recipe for more and more dependence, more and more ignorance, more and more recklessness.

If we are sincerely committed to the conservative cause, we must begin to develop strategies for recapturing the major cities—or, at the very least, making our ideas competitive in these regions. This may be the only way conservatism can survive in a changing country.

Last November, Matthew Continetti of the Weekly Standard explained why the status quo cannot be allowed to stand. “The GOP is increasingly confined to Appalachia, the South, and the Great Plains. When the next Congress convenes in 2009, there won’t be a single House Republican from New England. The GOP is doing only a little better in the mid-Atlantic. There will be only three Republican congressmen in New York’s 29-member delegation in the next Congress. Only a third of Pennsylvania’s delegation will be Republican–about the same proportion as in New Jersey. There will be a single Republican in Maryland’s eight-man delegation. The Rust Belt is hostile territory, too. So are the Mountain West and the Pacific Coast. The GOP is like the central character in Bob Dylan’s ‘Like a Rolling Stone.’ It’s on its own, no direction home.

“The Republicans are in demographic trouble. When you look at the ethnic composition of Obama’s coalition, you see that it’s kind of a mini-America. About two-thirds of Obama’s supporters are white and a third minorities. The Republican coalition, by contrast, is white, male, and old. There’s the first problem. Overall, Obama may have lost the white vote (while still doing better than Kerry did), but in 2008 whites (not counting Hispanics, per Census convention) made up the smallest proportion of the electorate since the start of exit polling. Obama scored tremendous victories among minorities. He won more than 90 percent of the black vote. He won the Hispanic vote by a two-to-one margin. He won the Asian vote by a similar margin.

“Then there are the young. Voters under 30 turned out in only slightly higher numbers than they did in 2004, but they overwhelmingly backed Obama, 68 percent to 30. A successful Obama presidency could lock these voters into the Democratic column for a long, long time.

“The most striking divide in 2008 is between rural voters and metropolitan voters. Rural voters back the Republican party overwhelmingly. The problem is that there aren’t many of them–and there are fewer all the time. It’s the metropolitan voters, the voters who live in cities or suburbs or exurbs, who are growing. And these voters are trending Democratic.”

The urban vs. rural dynamic Continetti speaks of is politically understandable, but philosophically vexing. Yes, decades ago the Republican Party made the shortsighted decision to place an excessive emphasis on turning out the rural vote—this explains the “Real American” rhetoric one often hears from Republican politicians. Yet it is the cities that desperately need to hear the Republican message of better schools and private-sector solutions to the problem of health-care accessibility.

The conservative movement in general and the Republican Party in particular must transcend the mentality that concedes the major cities to the Democrats. Today, the right must focus on developing a city-based conservatism that can appeal to these regions.

City-based conservatism cannot mean the old Northeastern-moderate vision, for that is so close to modern liberalism as to be nearly indistinguishable. City-based conservatism must mean a focus on schools, health care, crime prevention and economic renewal—a focus that can bring health and renewal to our broken cities.

Yes, in terms of rhetoric, city-based conservatism will not be the same as “rural conservatism.” Since city-based conservatism will be geared to sections of the country where progressives have won undisputed victories in the culture wars, it’s impossible to imagine a successful pitch to these regions built around certain hot-button issues. We need to capture the ears of social libertarians in these regions, lest these ears be alienated from the Republican message and hear instead the siren songs of socialism.

Developing a city-based conservatism is a challenge, but what if we choose not to accept this challenge? Continetti’s demographic warnings aren’t fictional. If a growing number of Americans find themselves intellectually and emotionally cut off from conservatism and the Republican Party, America will inevitably find herself cast headlong into the stagnation of statist Europe. Is that what we want? Is that what we need? Is that what the Founders intended?

The great challenge of the 2010s is the development and implementation of a city-based conservatism, one that seizes power from the Democrats and liberates those who have suffered as a result of that party’s policies. This is indeed a challenge—but it’s also an opportunity worth fighting for.

Terry Eastland on Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings.

Rick Perlstein on the GOP’s demographic struggles. Despite Perlstein’s barely disguised contempt for the Republican Party, he makes some valid points.

Remember a decade or so ago, when things were actually good for the GOP?

It felt good to be a Republican back then. George W. Bush was running for the Presidency, and he had captured the imagination of non-Democrats. “There has never been anything like it,” Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby wrote in June 1999. “The closest parallel to the Bush hysteria is Dwight D. Eisenhower’s vast popularity after World War II. But not even Eisenhower, a five-star war hero, had the Republican establishment kneeling at his feet this far in advance of the election. On the contrary, the foremost Republican in Washington, Senator Robert Taft of Ohio, contended with Eisenhower for the nomination. After losing two elections to Bill Clinton, Republicans are understandably desperate for a candidate who can win. But there is something surreal about the stampede to Bush. It is like the rush to buy Internet stocks, a frenzy to invest in a start-up with great PR but no earnings history.”

Back then, there was something compelling about Bush. His talk of “compassionate conservatism” appealed to those of us who were tired of being perceived as hard-hearted merely because we opposed Democratic policies. His promise to restore honor and dignity to the White House resonated with those of us who were disgusted by President Clinton’s literal staining of the Oval Office. His vow to pursue a humble foreign policy reassured those of us who thought Bill Clinton was trying to turn himself into the Savior of the World. Bush seemed like the GOP’s JFK, a young, vibrant figure who would work to move the country forward technologically and economically.

Bush vowed to be a President who would govern with prudence and discernment. He vowed to be a President who would reinvigorate the Republican Party, which was still attempting to overcome the negative image it had acquired in the years following the 1995 government shutdown. “We are now the party of ideas and innovation,” he stated in his acceptance speech at the 2000 Republican National Convention, “the party of idealism and inclusion, the party of a simple and powerful hope.”

Bush performed admirably in his debates with Vice President Al Gore, coming across as more humane and “normal” than the stiff, awkward former senator. Bush seemed reasonable, adroit, Presidential.

Yes, reality proved otherwise—but think about what might have been.

What if President Bush had been the same as candidate Bush? What if Dubya had indeed been the skilled leader we hoped he would be? What if Bush had been, well, competent?

What destroyed Bush’s Presidency was his fundamental lack of governing skills. He talked a good game, but failed to deliver. Someone with the gifts of governance would have been able to make the right decisions, veto the unconstitutional bills, remove the unwise aides, and choose the correct paths.

A competent Bush Presidency would have likely led to a GOP three-peat in 2008, and the avoidance of the controversies currently taking place under the leadership of a President with far less governing experience than even Bush himself. A competent Bush Presidency would have been a truly pro-life Presidency, one that would have spared many of the lives that were ultimately lost due to poor planning in Iraq (and in New Orleans, if you happen to share the progressive belief that Bush, not Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco, was responsible for what happened after Hurricane Katrina smashed through Louisiana).

The image of Bush in 2000 did not square with the reality of Bush in the 2000s. This is one of the great political tragedies of the age. Had Bush been as wise as he promised to be, had Bush governed with the ability that he advertised, he would have in fact gone down in history as one of our greatest Presidents. An intellectually disciplined Bush would have silenced the loud wails of those on the left who claimed Republicans hate government too much to manage it effectively. An ideologically grounded Bush would have recognized that expanding the size and scope of the federal government is, in reality, the opposite of compassion. A President who truly believed in a humble foreign policy would have rendered mute those who argued that shadowy “neocons” were the real shot-callers in the Republican Party.

“I believe the presidency — the final point of decision in the American government — was made for great purposes,” Bush said when he accepted his party’s nomination nine years ago. “It is the office of Lincoln’s conscience and Teddy Roosevelt’s energy and Harry Truman’s integrity and Ronald Reagan’s optimism. For me, gaining this office is not the ambition of a lifetime, but it is the opportunity of a lifetime. And I will make the most of it.” Yet he did not. Such a shame. Such a shame.

Larry Elder argues that Sammy Davis Jr., not Michael Jackson, should be considered the greatest entertainer of all-time.