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

Will Barack Obama vs. Sarah Palin become the next George W. Bush vs. Al Gore?

If Palin secures the GOP nomination in 2012, her challenge to the President will represent the sharpest ideological contrast since the controversial 2000 race. Palin’s intense support among conservative activists stems from the belief that she is the only person who can move the GOP back to the political philosophy of the Reagan era. If she becomes the GOP’s standard-bearer, she will represent a thorough refutation of the Obama vision.

While both men tried to touch upon themes that seemingly transcended ideology, Bush and Gore ultimately represented what Thomas Sowell once called a “conflict of visions.” Bush putatively stood for traditionalist America; Gore putatively stood for modernist America. While Bush did drop hints that he wasn’t that much of a believer in limited government, his base of support was clearly comprised of those who felt government was too burdensome, too onerous, too hostile to average Americans. Bush represented the heartland, the average Joe, the faith-filled flyover family; he would stand against the economic and social left and yell, “Stop!”

Gore represented those who regarded America’s past as more horrible than honorable. Gore’s core supporters were those who summarily rejected “heartland values” as nothing more than a code word for unchecked corporate greed, Christian Shari’a, white male privilege and foreign-policy bullying. These supporters believed that Gore would work towards a better, fairer America, one that guaranteed economic and social justice.

The rage with which progressives greeted the ultimate outcome of the 2000 contest should have come as no surprise. The American left regarded Bush’s victory as a moral horror, the first step in the attempt by the right to reverse every political and cultural gain the left had made since the post-WWII era. The left’s subsequent drift into conspiracy theorizing (remember the 2004 Jadakiss song “Why,” which suggested that Bush was the actual mastermind of 9/11?) was also predictable.

While many conservatives and progressives believed that John Kerry’s challenge to Bush in 2004 was another sharp ideological contrast, there wasn’t enough objective evidence to justify such a claim. Yes, Kerry was to the left of Bush on such issues as the judiciary and the Iraq War, but by ’04 it was clear that both men were domestic big spenders who believed in the fundamental goodness of government. Conservatives who voted for Bush did so either because they hated Kerry or because they did not want to oust a Commander-in-Chief in the middle of a war, not because they had any real hope that a second Bush term would result in any actual restraints on the size, scope and power of the federal government.

The 2008 race between Obama and John McCain was another ideological blur. McCain had cast a scornful eye upon movement conservatives for years, regarding them as nothing more than rigid ideologues and pests. McCain was Mr. Middle, Mr. Moderate, Mr. Reach Across the Aisle and Embrace Ted Kennedy. A year after the election, it’s still hard to believe that during one of those awful debates, McCain referred to Obama as “Senator Government,” a name that could just as easily apply to McCain himself.

Obama and McCain were equally skeptical of the conservative vision of domestic and foreign policy. With no real ideological difference to be found on the Presidential ballot, it’s not a surprise that millions of conservatives stayed home last year.

Palin may not be perfect, and she may still have noticeable flaws in 2012, but she is the only potential GOP candidate who can compel conservatives to actually leave their homes to vote. Because her vision of how America should be is so dramatically different from that of the President, an Obama-Palin race will be far more compelling, and far more historic, than either of the previous two contests.

Hopefully, Palin will select a running mate who can emphasize the ideological contrast instead of obscuring it. Despite his recent perceived missteps, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich would be ideal for this role; however, he’s not the only person capable of drawing a bright line between the GOP and Democratic tickets. Virginia Rep. Eric Cantor, Indiana Rep. Mike Pence, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal would also help Palin clarify her commitment to conservatism. (In theory, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann would also fit the bill; however, Bachmann has been characterized so extensively in the press as a “wingnut” that she would actually injure Palin’s Presidential chances, not help them.)

I’ve gone back and forth on Palin’s potential—but the reality is that no one has galvanized the right the way she has. Those of us who have profound disagreements with the Obama vision must now concede that Palin is the only voice through which such disagreement can be heard clearly. Palin is the official and undisputed leader of the American conservative movement. Now, she must lead that movement to victory.