Walt Gilbert's blog

Since the GOP’s most recent drubbing at the polls, there’s a detectable sense of triumphalism among denizens of the left-o-sphere. As conservatives retreat to their cabins in the wilderness, stocked up on hardtack and salt pork, to contemplate the future of the movement, the sounds of snickering and mockery from their opponents and the recriminations of erstwhile allies echo in their ears. At times like these, it’s easy to lose heart – especially if you don’t have the proper perspective on what, exactly, is going on.

Much of the delight that the left is taking in the travails of conservatives is misguided, however. It’s hard to blame them for basking in it, having spent the better part of the last ten years holed up in rustic domiciles of their own. But, if anyone should be aware that fortunes can turn in a relatively short period of time, it’s the left. After all, it was only a scant four years ago that the right was exulting in Howard Dean’s bellow heard ’round the world and chortling at the fact that Democrats had responded by putting him at the head of the party. And, we all see who’s laughing now.

Where the left is mistaken is in its perception of just what is taking place among the right in the aftermath of November 4. Witnessing the squabbling and finger-pointing, they seem to have convinced themselves that conservatism is a movement at long last put asunder. Of course, time will eventually be the judge. But, I would assert that what appears to be cannibalism and intramural bloodletting is little more than the transient bout of catharsis that always follows electoral losses – especially a second straight decisive electoral loss in four years.

There are signs that the conservative movement is in a much healthier state relative to that which its counterparts on the left found themselves in following the consecutive losses in 2000, 2002, and 2004. The most encouraging sign is the seeming lack of an outpouring of toxic hatred and rage toward the victors. Another encouraging sign is that there seems to be a much lower level of conspiracy mongering – and very little that isn’t justified by the fact that there are currently FBI investigations underway looking into voter registration fraud. Conservatives aren’t blaming Diebold and Halliburton, or their ideological equivalents, for what happened this year. By and large, the garment rending on the right has been a matter of self-rebuke.

Liberals will point to the recent rush to purchase guns as evidence that the the right is turning into a collection of concrete bunker-building yahoos beset by imaginary demons seeking to obliterate national boundaries and enslave the population. This is precisely where the left tends to go astray. By failing to recognize legitimate concerns of average Americans regarding government encroachments on individual liberties such as gun ownership, and lampooning people who see the potential for those encroachments when liberals control the legislative, executive and, potentially, the judiciary branches, Democrats will likely alienate the very voters they were so careful to pacify to get where they are.

What is encouraging about the right’s reaction to their rejection at the hands of voters is that, presented with the opportunity to blame America itself for failing to see the superiority of its ideas, it has so far refused to take the bait. A few people here and there lowered their flags to half-staff, or flew them upside-down in a silly display of petulance. And, a tiny, scattered minority of conservatives have talked about leaving the country for a more friendly atmosphere (which would be where, exactly?). But, on the whole, conservatism seems to be focused on finding out where they, themselves, went wrong. This is exactly the kind of healthy approach that brings about a speedy recovery.

What many on the left have convinced themselves are turf wars are actually little more than shoving matches between friends and allies. There’ll be plenty of name calling and blame-shifting over the coming months, to be sure. But, as the next round of elections draws nearer, and conservatives confront the very real prospect of further losses, there will be the kind of focusing of minds that comes about as the proverbial dawn hanging looms.

As I pointed out in my blog post from yesterday, there are already signs that the right is starting to “get it”. The efforts of the #dontgo Movement indicate a seriousness of purpose that hasn’t been seen since the Gingrich Revolution of 1994. But #dontgo will only be a part of the comeback, albeit an absolutely crucial part. In essence, it will be laying the groundwork that will enable other efforts to succeed.

Where #dontgo’s work focuses on promoting the tenets of traditional conservatism – low taxation, low regulation, individual liberties, and free markets – other entities are working to find ways to draw the Republican Party, as a vehicle for those ideas, back to its foundations. At The Next Right, a web site put together by a group of young center-right activists, the focus is on using technology as a tool to put together a right-leaning, grassroots-centered agenda that will bring about a conservative-libertarian resurgence, and rebuilding the Republican Party around that agenda.

Additionally, at Next Gen GOP, there’s a focus on promoting the ideas of an even younger generation of conservatives. This will be an absolutely crucial element of any rebuilding strategy if the Republican Party is to survive and provide an alternative to the evermore left-leaning agenda of the Democrats. As currently constructed, the GOP is hopelessly out of step with voters age 18-29. While some comfort themselves with the fact that, as a group, the youth vote tends not to show up on Election Day, it’s a very false sense of comfort, and to accept it as a justification for ignoring the concerns of younger voters is to sow the seeds of conservatism’s ultimate extinction.

Voting patterns are established early in people’s civic lives. A person who begins political life as a Democrat will likely die a Democrat. While it’s true that people tend to grow more conservative with age, and that more people come of age as political liberals, it serves no good purpose to allow an entire generation of voters to grow comfortable with the ideas of the left. And, unless the Republican Party makes an effort to address the concerns of younger voters, demonstrates a degree of respect for their ideas, and makes an effort to explain how center-right principles are more advantageous to interests than those of the opposition, the path back to relevance will be much longer and the terrain will be much rougher.

The efforts of groups like #dontgo, The Next Right, and Next Gen GOP, while separate and distinct, are by no means mutually exclusive. On the contrary, they are complementary and interdependent. Where #dontgo seeks to isolate itself from partisan identity in order to cultivate relationships with voters who believe in center-right principles, but no longer believe in the party that espouses them, The Next Right seeks to create an agenda that draws the party closer to those who believe in its principles, but have lost faith in its willingness to live up to them. And, while these two entities are working separately to bring voters and the GOP together by bridging the chasm that has opened between them as a consequence of a disconnect between the stated principles of the Republican Party and the actions of its leadership, Next Gen GOP is working to fill the gap with a younger, fresher, set of ideas that appeal to voters who will chart the course for conservatism and America itself.

So, while liberals are basking in the glory of finally having wrested the levers of power from the hands of the Republican Party, it will be a huge mistake if they allow themselves to believe that they have vanquished conservatism. Truth is, they’ve only succeeded in temporarily stalling the vehicle that conservatism rode to power; a vehicle in desperate need of a tuneup, no less. Let them have their day for the time being. Soon enough, they’ll fall victim to their own hubris, and conservatives will be poised to regain control. The groundwork is being laid as I write.

[Cross-posted at my personal blog, Walt's Wall]

[This is fairly obvious stuff to most of the folks who inhabit TNxR, but there are some who aren't as familiar with Web 2.0, so I've written it with the novice in mind.  Also, this is cross-posted at my personal blog, Walt's Wall.  I just thought I'd post it here in case anyone wanted to pass it along to less web-savvy others who might find it useful.]

OK, folks. You’ve had 24 hours to sulk and conjure all the nightmare scenarios and conspiracy theories you’ll need to cover you for the next four years. Now, it’s time to get real and get serious about putting the conservative house back in order. And, while it may soothe your anguished soul to believe that Barack Obama can be prevented from taking office, if only an expert safecracker could take a shot at the vault in the Department of Health Statistics in Honolulu, there are pressing matters at hand that demand immediate attention; matters that will actually make a difference in the long run.

You see, there’s a movement to rebuild. It’s a movement which I’ve been accused of taking part in destroying by some folks who are enraged that John McCain managed to secure the nomination of the Republican Party. The fact is, I supported McCain in the primaries. And, as it turns out, he was soundly beaten at the polls. My rationale at the time was the same as it is now: That McCain was the only candidate in the mix who had a shot at winning on November 4. That matter will obviously be debated ad nauseum for the next four to eight years and beyond, depending upon how long it takes for conservatives to get their act straight.

I was also an early supporter of Sarah Palin, having voiced the opinion that she would make an excellent vice presidential candidate a few days after McCain secured the GOP nomination. And, as is bound to happen when you stick your head out of the foxhole, I’m getting flak from all directions. The rightest of the right in the GOP don’t like me much for backing McCain, and the left side of the GOP don’t like me much for daring to suggest that some backwoods governor from a state without an Amtrak station could possibly serve as Vice President of the United States of America.

Of course, it goes a bit far to suggest that my opinion has any bearing on the course of campaign events. Still, I’ve been gifted with the hair shirt by people from both ends of the Republican ideological spectrum, and if I have to wear it, so be it. I’ll take the blame if it will help a few people to get out of the ditch and get behind the conservative movement once again.

Just so we’re clear on things, let me point out that this is not going to be an easy task. It’s going to take the effort of literally millions of people to get this train rolling again. But it can be done, and most importantly, it must be done. There’s a plenty at stake for the future of America without raising the specter of tanks rolling through the streets and mysterious squads of black-clad government agents descending upon suburban homes to snatch law-abiding conservatives from their beds in the wee hours. Tuesday’s election did not foreordaine this despite anything your coworkers forward to your email account.

Given my recent success (as it were) in choosing candidates and reaching accord with my fellow conservatives, I’ll reserve for now my opinion on just which way the conservative movement must lurch if we are to regain the trust of the voting public in operating the levers of government. Instead, I will focus on what other conservatives must do in order to exert influence on the direction of the party that will embody that movement. This will be the easy part, since none of the suggestions I make require any monetary investment, and the process of undertaking them requires minimal effort – scarcely more than a few mouse clicks and filling out a few form fields on web pages.

First off, I suggest that every conservative sign up on at least one social networking site. My personal preference is Facebook, where I have managed to build a “friends list” of just under 900 people in a matter of just a few months. Not all of the people on my list are politically active. Some, in fact, are old high school friends whom I haven’t seen in years. That’s part of the beauty of the social networking phenomenon, actually. It can be a gratifying experience on a personal level, whether you intend to use it in order to make political connections, to simply reconnect with long-lost acquaintances, or both. It doesn’t cost a thin dime, and it can be an incredibly informative tool if used properly.

When you set up an account on Facebook and other social networking sites (or “SocNets” in Web parlance), the site will offer to look through the contacts in your Web-based email accounts to see if there are any existing users in your contact list. This is purely optional, so you can decline to allow it to do so and go about searching for contacts manually. While it may seem somewhat invasive, it is much more convenient to permit Facebook to search for you. So, you have to balance your sense of comfort with the privacy of your contact list with your desire to establish as many contacts as you can in the least amount of time.

For social networking to be effective, you need to establish a good number of contacts: The more you have, the more quickly and easily you can communicate and share information. That’s not to say that everyone needs to have a huge list of friends. It all depends on what you’re seeking to accomplish. If your aim is to share information and keep abreast of the latest developments in a broad area of interest, it pays to have a lot of people in your network. Likewise, if you’re simply interested in staying in contact with a close, tight-knit community of people with a focus on a specific, narrow set of issues, there’s no point in establishing a huge list of contacts.

There are other sites which work in similar ways. Simply typing “social networking sites” into your favorite search engine will reveal dozens of choices. Pick out the one that sounds most appealing to you – there are several criteria to consider, such as demographics – but one will surely appeal to you. And, once you’ve settled on your preference, take the time to tinker and explore. But, whatever you do, don’t give up on it if you don’t immediately see its utility. My Facebook account sat dormant for several weeks while I wasted time dawdling on a MySpace page that I abandoned in fairly short order.

If privacy is your concern, there are settings that can be adjusted on your account that you can adjust to restrict who is able to access your page and see your activity. While nothing is 100 percent fool-proof when it comes to the nefarious activities of malingering web denizens, my experience has been completely free of hassle and harrassment.

Once you’ve set up on a social networking site, you’ll also want to sign up for a Twitter account. Like Facebook, Twitter’s utility isn’t immediately obvious. Much like my initial foray into social networking, I allowed my account to sit unused for several weeks before I finally decided to see what the fuss was all about and learn how to properly use it. Since then, it has become an integral part of my online experience.

Twitter is a a combination of social networking and blogging – some refer to it as “micro-blogging”. It’s an extremely efficient way of broadcasting your thoughts and activities and keeping up with those of others. It basically works by restricting your posts to 140 characters. This forces you to get to the point quickly, and the key to getting your point across is to be as interesting as possible within those 140 characters. The forced efficiency is part of the beauty of Twitter, actually. It has a way of removing extraneous information that only serves to get in the way of your message.

A huge part of the effectiveness of Twitter is broadcasting links to information that you encounter as you go about your typical routine on the Web. Yet, as anyone knows, link URL’s can be well over 140 characters long in some cases, making them too long for Twitter’s imposed limit. However, there are services called URL shorterners, or re-directs, which will cut down the number of characters to allow them to fit Twitter’s format. My personal favorite is called “is.gd”. Another popular one is “tinyurl”. Just type either of those terms into a search engine and you’ll find them. Once there, all you do is cut and paste the original URL into a form field and submit it, and you’ll be provided with an permanent alternate URL that will be approximately 18 to 25 characters long and will allow you to type in a description to accompany your link.

Of course, then there’s the matter of getting your link seen by others. It will do no good to send out every interesting tidbit of information you encounter on a given day if no one sees it. The way to do this is to begin “following” others’ Twitter messages – or “Tweets” as they’re referred to in the “Twitterverse”. Like Facebook, when you set up your account, it will give you the option to allow Twitter to scour the contacts stored in your web-based email account for users who are already signed up with the service. You can choose from a list of whoever the software discovers and immediately begin following their Tweets, or you can choose to follow none at all. Also, you can choose not to allow Twitter to scour your contacts if don’t feel comfortable with the idea.

Assuming you have a healthy paranoia about allowing unknown software to pilfer through your email contacts, you can always use Twitter’s search function to find accounts of people you want to follow. Many politicians now use Twitter to communicate with their online grassroots, and so do many major news sources like Fox News and CNN. Matt Drudge also has a Twitter feed that you can follow, as does Jim Geraghty from National Review Online’s blog “The Campaign Spot”. Some are more active than others, but you can expect to see Twitter used more and more in the future as awareness of the potential of this technology begins to dawn on more and more people who seek to influence news coverage or public policy.

Part of the etiquette of Twitter, and what makes it work, is the phenomenon called “follow-back”. Simply put, if someone follows your Tweets, it’s a good practice to follow theirs in return. You will find the option to do this whenever you search for a Twitter user and succeed in finding one. Generally speaking, if you set your account up in order to do so, you will be notified when someone begins following your Tweets, and vice-versa. Also, you’ll gain followers by simply using Twitter.

The key to gaining followers by using the service is to use the “reply” function whenever you see a Tweet that you feel calls for a response. When you do this, all the people who are following the person you reply to will see it. If your response is interesting or entertaining, there’s a good chance someone will begin following your Tweets. Remember to return the favor – and, if you’re so inclined, it never hurts to send a reply to that person, saying “Thanks for the follow!”

If all of this seems a bit complicated, it’s much easier than you’d expect. Just use your preferred search engine to find “Twitter how-to” or “Twitter tutorial” and you’ll find plenty of links to explain the ins and outs. And, once you’ve gotten a handle on it, you’ll want to find ways to integrate it into your Web habits: Twitter can actually be somewhat addictive once you’ve discovered just how useful and entertaining it can be.

One way to get integrated is through using browser extensions, or add-ons. There are several useful ones available for both Firefox and Internet Explorer. There are even some standalone Twitter applications that can be downloaded to make using it more convenient for those who prefer it that way. As you become more familiar with Twitter, you’ll likely want to find these tools to maximize your efficiency. Simply searching for “Twitter extensions” or “Twitter add-ons” or “Twitter toolbar” will lead you to plenty of options. They’re typically small downloads that install themselves and require little more than relaunching your browser filling in your account information to get set up and running.

One of the benefits of using a service like Twitter and following others and being followed is that you’re likely to be able to find help if you should encounter any trouble installing extensions and toolbars. There are lots of people in the Twitterverse who are more than happy to help out with minor technical problems.

The key is not to get discouraged or dismiss its utility too soon. Keep using it and keep searching for people to follow and before you know it, it will pay off. You’ll get links that are hilarious and some that are stunning. But, always, always remember that whenever you send out a Tweet, whoever is following you will see it. So, it pays to practice some discretion since, by its very nature, Twitter is not a way to transmit private information. It simply isn’t intended to be.

The reason services like Twitter and Facebook will be so important in rebuilding the conservative movement is because that is where technology is currently heading. The ability to connect with others and disseminate information as quickly and widely as possible will be crucial in the months and years ahead. New technologies will emerge that will eventually push these aside. But, as long as conservatives make it a point to stay abreast of trends in communicating and broadcasting information, we will be able to compete with the left. And, until we make an effort to do that, all the money and door knocking and phone banking and campaigning in the world won’t help ups to close the gap and eventually return to prominence.

There’s a movement already underway, and it’s being led by sharp, talented, and savvy young leaders like Patrick Ruffini, Jon Henke, and Soren Dayton at The Next Right – a right-leaning community/blog/forum dedicated to rebuilding the conservative movement through grassroots participation and exploitation of technology – otherwise known as “building the Rightroots”. These dedicated thirty-something activists have taken it upon themselves to start a process that is long overdue, and they’re getting the attention of the Republican leadership. Likely, they’ll have considerable influence over that leadership in the near future. As such, it behooves conservatives of every stripe to keep an eye on them and pay close attention to what they have to say.

Also, there’s a brand new group called NextGenGOP who have launched a blog dedicated developing conservative talent from an even younger pool of activists – those age 18 – 25. It will be crucial for the conservative movement pay attention to this group of voters because, as November 4 made clear, the Republican Party is graying quickly. And, unless the GOP can get a handle on what’s on the minds of the younger generation, it will be relegated to permanent minority status. The party, as a vehicle for conservatism, simply cannot afford to allow an entire generation of voters to get into the habit of voting for Democrats for no better reason than that the GOP never bothered to pay attention to them or their concerns. This isn’t simply a matter of winning the next election. It’s a matter of political survival.  If you know a bright young conservative who might be able to contribute, tell them about NextGenGOP.

So there you have it. That’s my advice, for what it’s worth, on what it will take to bring the Republican Party back out of the wilderness in which we currently find ourselves. As I said at the beginning of this post, it’s not my intention to influence the ideological direction, or to make any pronouncements on which government policy positions are needed to regain the trust and respect of the American voter. Rather, it’s my intention to point in the general direction that conservatives must head if they’re going to have any influence over the future direction of this great movement.

And with that, I hope to see a confident, forward-looking movement again in the near future. As I said, it’s not going to be easy. There will be setbacks and recriminations along the way – something I can attest to with complete confidence, as I’ll be bearing some of the brunt. But, for now, the time has come for conservatives to get behind this movement and push it up and out of the ditch in which it is currently mired.

There’s no time to waste.

Very late last night, I engaged in a back-and-forth with a poster named "truthynesslover" on the matter of Barack Obama's record in the Illinois legislature with regard to abortion.  It was a remarkable exchange in that, once we got to the very nub of the issue, "truthynesslover" went on a posting posting spree that lasted just long enough to knock the important part of the exchange off the front page sidebar.  Rather than engage further on this particular topic, "truthyness" seemed to prefer posting several cut n' pasted passages from the 9/11 commission report.

In that light, I just wanted to document the exchange once again, and you'll note precisely where it stopped:

Man, truthy. . .

Submitted by Walt Gilbert on Tue, 08/19/2008 - 22:16.

. . .I hate to step on your triumphalism, but the fact is, we started out talking about how Obama doesn't seem to mind letting babies die in agony as long as it pleases NARAL, and ended up talking about Dick Cheney saying there were meetings between Mohammed Atta and the Hussein regime -- which is true -- and you feel like you won?

If that's the case, I bow to your superior skills.

wedge issue lie

Submitted by truthynesslover on Tue, 08/19/2008 - 22:37.

Before SB1093 in 2001 was even proposed the illinois Abortion Law of 1975 stated: (720 ILCS 510/6) (2) (a) No abortion shall be performed or induced when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion. and it also stated: (720 ILCS 510/6) (2) (b) Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born alive, the physician required by Section 6(2)(a) to be in attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Any such physician who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly violates Section 6(2)(b) commits a Class 3 felony. I'm sure you can see the purely political reason why career Republican Jim Ryan refused to protect the babies that were clearly already protected under Illinois law - he was setting the stage for some partisan political theater on the legislature floor. Oh and as you should know SB1093 passed with the previously mentioned 'poison pill' paragraph removed. Do you people enjoy being played?

S'cuse me, genius. . .

Submitted by Walt Gilbert on Tue, 08/19/2008 - 23:00.

. . .but, just because an infant isn't viable doesn't mean it can't experience pain.

That was the point at which "truthynesslover" declined to discuss the matter any further and launched into the 9/11 commission/Dick Cheney/Halliburton posting orgy.  Now, I don't know who "truthynesslover" is, but it seems clear to me that he or she, much like the Obama campaign, isn't interested in hashing out the Infants Born Alive issue in a public forum.

I'll leave speculation as to why that is to the reader.

The addition of Andrew Breitbart to the stable of columnists at the Washington Times is, to my mind, a great development.  It seems to signal an emerging consciousness within the editorial board that there is a need for conservatism to renew its efforts to take part in the creation of cultural fare rather than ceding it to the left without so much as a peep, unless it happens to be the tired, old puling that conservatives have come to use as a crutch to explain the movement's misfortunes.

Breitbart tackles this issue in his column today, and it's well worth the read if only to serve as a reminder that if the rebuilding of the movement is to have any hope of success, it will have to take place on all fronts.  The cultural front is perhaps the most crucial one, since potential voters who aren't otherwise engaged most often develop their opinions based on what they're exposed to through the arts.

Andrew puts it aptly in the following passage:

If we encouraged our young to consider careers in the arts, we would begin to reap the benefits in short order. Instead, we waste valuable time complaining and now are knee-deep in our enemy's dogma and have the indignity of paying for their products. Too much time has been lost navel-gazing about why things haven't fallen our way.

Read the full article here.

There seems little doubt that illegal immigration is the single most divisive issue among conservatives.  There's a sense among border hawks that anyone who doesn't adopt an enforcement-only position on the matter has caved to political correctness and sold out the nation's sovereignty in the name of feel-good policies and rhetoric.  Then, there are those who are uncomfortable with the rhetoric that has been employed by border hawks and resent the feeling that they're being ideologically bullied into accepting a harsh view of Hispanics in general in order to avoid being tarred as a criminal coddling one-worlder.

Over the course of the debate, the thing that stands out is that, generally speaking, the depth of passion with regard to the issue is directly attributable to the individual's proximity to the problem.  People who live in border states naturally feel much more strongly about illegal immigration than those who live in the nation's interior and aren't force to confront the fallout of uncontrolled immigration.  And, so, the problem becomes one of perspective.  You can't expect someone who lives in a rural town in North Dakota to have the same experience as someone who lives in San Antonio or Los Angeles.

That's not to say that people who live in the nation's interior don't feel strongly about the issue.  There are those who live in Wisconsin Dells who will grow positively livid at the mere mention of the subject.  By the same token, there are conservatives (albeit, not many) in Brownsville, Texas who shudder at the thought of a Tancredoesque immigration policy.  Invariably, the most passionate group on either side tends to dictate the terms of debate, and neither side seems interested in discussing anything beyond the deepest principles upon which they base their views, and the best way to see those principles reflected in policy.

Those who hold the most restrictionist view do so based on the idea that the law is the law, and if there is no respect for one portion of the law, then it heralds a breakdown of the entire system and undermines the most basic element of an orderly society.  Those who hold a more relaxed approach tend to do so based on the idea that part of America's unique character is its generally welcoming attitude toward foreigners and the belief that anyone who comes here and is willing to put forth the effort and play by the rules can contribute to the greatest, most successful experiment in human history.

Ah, but there's the sticking point:  "play by the rules".  It is, after all, a crucial part of the equation.  And, whether we like it or not, illegal immigrants are here as a result of a failure to play by the rules.  Consequently, they have bypassed one of the basic elements of the experiment -- often at the expense of those who go to the not-inconsiderable trouble observe all of the elements.  Understandably, many people find this grossly unfair, and it infuriates them.

Still, there is the issue of the rhetoric employed in advocating a more restrictionist posture.  When an issue divides people into camps based on principles that are so basic as law and order versus freedom and opportunity, it is inevitable that passions will become inflamed.  It is made even worse when the two sides are divided by virtue of having to see the direct consequences of uncontrolled immigration as opposed to seeing the benefits of high levels of immigration. 

A lettuce farmer in Arizona sees hardworking people who will work for lower wages than the teenagers who would prefer to work in the service industry rather than spend his days sweating in a field.  Young parents see their children learning Spanish from the little Mexican girl who just moved in down the street, and her parents seem like honest, hardworking people.

Meanwhile, a framing carpenter in Bakersfield, California sees his opportunities diminish because he can't get a decent-paying job as a result of an influx of low-paid Mexicans who are wiling to work for low wages and get by on the bare minimum so that he can send his pay back across the border to his family so that they can eventually come and stay in the U.S.  Or, a struggling middle class family sits in a hospital waiting room for hours hoping for their child to be seen by a doctor at some point in the near future, fearing they'll be given the bum's rush because they don't have insurance.  And, find themselves in a room with people who don't speak English and obviously don't have insurance either getting the same treatment, if not better, and knowing that the government will be picking up their tab.

It is clearly obvious that something needs to be done.  Native born Americans are growing resentful, and not without good reason, at the seeming disregard with which they see themselves being treated by their government.  If this continues unaddressed, the resentments will grow, and all of the nightmare scenarios that pro-immigrant groups point to as looming threats will undoubtedly come to fruition.  And, there is absolutely no reason that this has to be the case.

As conservatives, we all agree that centralized government is bad government.  It is far removed from the people it serves, and it has repeatedly proven itself to be utterly clumsy and oafish with regard to dealing with localized problems.  And, at least in its most extreme cases, illegal immigration is a localized problem.  Why should it be addressed through a centralized bureaucracy like Immigration and Customs Enforcement?

Back in the days leading up to the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, one of the most compelling arguments that Republicans made was that government should be closer to the people.  As a result, there was as rash of proposals for government reform geared toward that end.  Why can't illegal immigration be a part of that kind of reform?

I would submit that the problem would be best addressed in the way that crime in general was addressed by the Contract with America.  It seems to me, as a conservative, that having the power to enforce our immigration laws centralized and funded through a bloated bureaucracy like ICE, and throwing more money at it every year with minimal results and the inevitable kick-in of the law of diminishing returns, is a terrible idea.

How about turning to federalism?  How about, instead of funding what hasn't worked for so long, returning to what we know works?  Why not, instead of rewarding ICE for years of failure and ineptitude, we take some of the money that is being spent on what hasn't worked, put it into block grants to fund local enforcement agencies to deal with the problem?  The money would then be targeted toward places where the problem is most keenly felt, and it would be used by people who are most familiar with their particular situation, rather than a heavily centralized body that is by nature a victim of inertia?

Some money could be directed toward the facilities that would inevitably be needed to house and process the illegal immigrants that are apprehended if local enforement officials deem it necessary.  Some could be directed toward training local officers in immigration law, or even Spanish language education.  Whatever it is that the local community needs, they're more likely to know it than a bureaucrat it D.C.

And, finally, what makes decentralization work is that it creates an opportunity for ideas to be generated by people closest to the situation.  The more successful ideas could then serve as models for other areas that are hard-hit by the woes that accompany uncontrolled immigration.  They could choose to focus on whatever symptom of the problem has proven to be the most vexing within their own communities, rather than have it dictated and enforced by people with no familiarity to their own unique situations.  And, finally, those communities wherein illegal immigration has not proven to be a real problem wouldn't have reason to fear the prospect of the government swooping down on them and disrupting their lives.

I don't contend that this is the entire solution to the problem.  But, it at least addresses the issue in a way that conservatives can all support in good conscience, and provides relief to those who most desperately need it, and a measure of peace of mind for those who are alarmed whenever they see the looming shadow of the heavy hand of government descending upon their lives and communities.  At the very least, it seems to provide room to breathe for all of us.

<!--[endif]-->

As the host of MSNBC’s “Countdown”, Keith Olbermann has established himself as the premier television journalist in America in the eyes of left-leaning political junkies. Having broken free of the intellectually stifling environment of sports broadcasting, Olbermann tackled his new assignment with all the élan of Andrei Chikatilo on his first day as janitor at the Moscow Home for Unwed Mothers. His enthusiasm has paid dividends, drawing viewers in the near six-digit range to the nightly broadcast in which he delights in lampooning the most newsworthy right wing figures of the day.

Success has made Olbermann a very busy man, which makes landing an interview with him a Herculean task for a right-leaning journalist. It was through sheer monomaniacal persistence that I was able to get a few minutes of his time to sit down for the following one-on-one. I hope the reader will find it as enlightening as I did.

Keith Olbermann: It’s Mr. Olbermann. You don’t know me. You have no right to address me by my first name without first getting my permission. 

You see, that’s the problem with you right wingers. You see the world and all its people as nothing more than automatons that you can program to do your nefarious bidding through lies, deceit and unconscionable treachery. You see yourselves as the great puppet masters of humanity, pulling the strings of ignorance to elicit the Pavlovian responses that keep you in power. You have no respect for human dignity. You do not care that the world is soaked in the blood of children as a consequence of your quest for power and wealth. You sow fear and hatred wherever you plod as you lay one jackbooted foot before the last, traversing the globe in your diabolical bloodlust. Control is your unholy grail. And the crushed souls of the victims who lie in your path are little more than “collateral damage”, as you euphemistically view it in your Mephistophelean minds.
 

W.G.:  Thank you. If I may, I would just like to begin by telling you how much of a fan I was of your work when you were at ESPN. I found you to be a very entertaining sportscaster, and often laughed out loud at your obscure references and ironic critiques.  What made you decide to move on from that genre of broadcasting?

K.O.: The growing popularity of NASCAR, in spite of my persistent mockery and derision, led me to conclude that the sports world is populated by a vast collection of chaw-spitting dullards worthy of no more respect than the garden slugs they represent on an intellectual level. All the swinging of sticks and throwing of balls for the entertainment of poltroons in the stands lost what minimally redeeming value it had when it finally occurred to me that the sports world was being overrun by the bastard sons of backwoods moonshiners and sister-courting simpletons who know nothing beyond how to make a left turn while strapped into a sheet metal-covered cage bolted onto an outrageously expensive wad of nuts, bolts and wires designed to do nothing more than ravage the planet we temporarily call a home, yet treat with no more concern for the future than is attributable to the common housefly. The tedious conversations with slack-jawed rubes and the monotonous recitation of meaningless facts and statistics became so mind-numbingly repetitive that I could no more imagine myself enduring another day of it than I could imagine myself standing before the throng of tuxedo-clad fatheads at the Espies in a singlet and cowboy boots.

W.G.:  So, you’ve lost all interest in sports? I think a lot of readers will find that shocking, given that it was your calling for so many years. What made you decide to go into the world of political commentary?

K.O.: I don’t care what your so-called “readers” find shocking, frankly. In fact, it was the people who make up your so-called “readership” that drew me out of that tar papered hovel they called a studio in Connecticut and into my corner office in Manhattan where I am finally getting the respect that my keen intellect and rhetorical adroitness command. It became painfully clear to me that my estimable skills as an analyst were the proverbial pearls cast before the swine that are the sports fans who huddle daily before their idiot boxes to find out which juiced-up jock managed to knock a leather-encased sphere of twine over a fence and into the grasping hands of a teeming mob of howling, drunken nitwits whose lives are so bereft of meaning that the mere act of finding oneself in the path of a ball is deemed sufficient cause to hop around and shout with glee like a toddler upon discovering the wonders of the backyard kiddy pool.

The people who read the tripe you and your ilk put out are responsible for the demise of a once-great nation, filled with hope and promise. You, sir, have poisoned the collective mind of this nation with the vile, putrid, hate-filled bilge that emanates from your so-called “think” tanks. You, sir, have lowered the standards of the intellectual life of our people to such an extent that the barest glimmer of independent thought is subjected to the moronic hoots of the Jerry Springer audience you call a party. The slightest expression of dissent is howled down as though it were a solar eclipse taking place over a time-forsaken land of Cro-Magnons. You, sir, represent a toxin to this nation’s – nay, this world’s – mind, body and soul. And, it is my task – my mission – to eradicate the planet of the scourge of your slithering, reptilian horde of mental vipers just as St. Patrick did the Emerald Isle.

For all the mouth-breathing fatuousness of the sports world, it represents a mere dram in comparison to the vast reservoir of venom that you and your kind are pumping into the veins of all that is good about the world. And, so, I have my priorities. And, when I succeed in making the world aware of the pestilence that you represent, those priorities will take hold and we will all be gloriously free of your presence, once and for all.

Following his announcement that he is ending his campaign for the 2008 presidential elections, many of Ron Paul's supporters are unsure what to do.  Some plan to support Libertarian candidate Bob Barr, while others plan to sit out the election entirely.  Still others believe that the best action is to refuse to support any presidential candidate while voting for down-ballot candidates.

But, there remains a solid core of Paul supporters who, in professing a belief in what they consider to be "core conservative values", have chosen to support Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.  They are known among many Republicans as the "Win-by-Losing Cult".

The "Win-by-Losing Cult" maintains a compound in a secret location.  In order to have direct communication with its members, one must agree to be taken blindfolded on a two-hour journey in the back of a step van over rough terrain to a cabin in the remote woods outside Boise, Idaho.  Upon Paul's announcement, I called up a source and arranged to be driven to the myserious woodland retreat in order to get their reaction to the news.

However, when I arrived, I was met with stony silence.  It seems that, upon the announcement that Paul was ending his campaign, members of the Win-by-Losing Cult became so despondent that they couldn't even get out of bed.

They remained there, lying utterly still with their faces covered the entire time I was at the scene.  The overall sense of melancholy at the compound was palpable.  Not even a groan could be heard as the cult members contemplated the momentousness of their loss.  It was as though mass catatonia had settled over the entire group.

As I wandered through the compound, I couldn't escape the sense of doom that had settled over the entire complex.  It hung in the air as heavy as the late summer humidity of New Orleans.  Only, unlike New Orleans, where a spirit of irony managed to keep a bar open even amid the devastation of Katrina, the compound was bereft of any kind of life.

When I went outside to find the driver who had taken me to the compound, he seemed as mystified by the scene inside as I was.  Asked what might have happened, he offered a befuddled shake of the head, a shrug, and a puzzled "Hell if I know."  We both stood there at a loss for what to do next.

Finally, I decided to go back inside and do another walk-through in hopes of finding some sign of life that would pierce the overall sense of doom.  Then, I discovered the cryptic note that would provide some answer as to what had befallen this eccentric group of political activists.

To Whom it May Concern:

By now, you will have discovered that we are not in much of a mood to talk.  Do not mistake this for surrender, for it is anything but.  The silence that envelops us is not the silence of a defeated army.  It is not the silence of the vanquished.

No, the silence you are experiencing is that of a movement in gestation.  We lie still for the moment, conserving the energy that will be required in order to set in motion the chain of events that will leave the world standing in awe upon the return of The One. 

Do not concern yourselves with our cause at this moment, for you are incapable of grasping its enormity.  You will know its full power soon enough.  And, when you do, you will tremble in its shadow.  But do not be fearful, for the power that shall be unleashed upon the world is a beneficent one.  There will be those who do fear it, but they will do so simply because they do not understand it.

If you do not want to be among the quivering masses when The One returns, educate yourselves.  Seek the truth.  Find it and spread it hither an yon.  Because, when The One returns, all will be put right.  I say this to you in the hope that it will lead to the salvation of your conservative soul.  You can choose to accept it, or deny it.  I trust you will choose wisely.  For the truly conservative soul fears not the return of The One, Hale-Bopp.  I mean, Ronald Reagan.

Love,

Dave

And, with that, I sought out my driver.  He didn't bother with the blindfold routine for the trip back.  It seems he was as bewildered as I was.

All in all, though, having the blindfold on for the trip to the compound wasn't so bad.  It made for a new experience on the trip back home.  Pretty scenic, actually.

The Republican Party's recent troubles have given birth to a new breed of conservative that I don't recall having ever dealt with before.  They're a rather sullen lot, given to extended periods of despair marked by an almost irremediable sense of nihilism.  So morose are these newly arrived conservatives that one is tempted to disregard them as little more than emotionally stunted attention seekers who are best ignored.

However, as you can see from the image below, that would be a mistake.  These melancholy conservatives are quite serious in their despondency and will not hesitate for one moment in inflicting serious harm upon themselves and the entire conservative movement in their desire to teach the world a lesson.

<!--[if gte vml 1]>

<![endif]-->

Conservatism traditionally being an ideology of optimism (George Will and John Derbyshire being notable exceptions), its adherents most often find themselves at a loss when confronted with emo-cons.  Imagine, if you will, Larry Kudlow trying to talk Paul Krugman off a window ledge after Steve Forbes is appointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve.  Every attempt at consolation results in deeper dejection, because reasoning with emo-cons is the intellectual equivalent of attempting to escape Chinese finger cuffs through brute strength.

So, how does one go about dealing with an emo-con when he has reached the nadir?  What is the best way to prevent that nihilistic tendency from taking hold of its victim and sending him into an emotional spiral that threatens not only himself, but all the people around him who struggle in vain to understand and remedy the sense of alienation that has robbed them of a one-time compatriot and ally?  Sadly, the truth is that there are no easy answers to that question.  Each emo-con is unique and must be dealt with as an individual.

However, that doesn't mean that we are powerless in the face of this crisis.  There are things that we can do to, if not completely alter the emo-con mindset, at least buy time until the gathering gloom finally gives way to a sense of perspective, and hope is allowed to crack the shell of this exquisite anhedonia by way of more aggressive means of intervention should they become necessary.  In some cases, it is that buying of time that serves as the singular ray of light that obliterates the darkness that envelops the soul of the emo-con.

Remembering that the following suggestions are to be used only when confronted with an emo-con mentality in its most acute stages, and when there is an imminent danger of serious harm to the emo-con or the people in close ideological proximity, I will list below some techniques that might be employed to avert disaster.  It is vitally important, however, that the person using these techniques do so only as a last resort, and only in cases where more conventional means (reasoning, giving time and space, education) are untenable.

One of the hallmarks of the emo-con is the rhetoric of futility.  While it is not solely the property of these implacably forlorn denizens of the right, it is a near-universal identifier.  While scrolling through the comments sections of blogs and discussion forums, you will invariably encounter paragraphs that pronounce the demise of all that is worth preserving about the Republican Party and, by extension, America itself.  By way of example:

"It is a sad day when, in America -- once the greatest nation on the face of this planet -- we can't even field a candidate who isn't willing to surrender our national interests to international socialists who want to obliterate the very concept of national borders and enslave all of humanity to one gigantic superstate.  I fear that we have lost the will to defend ourselves as a nation, and as such, I see no point in even voting in this election.  Goodbye America.  It was a wonderful idea.  Too bad we proved unworthy of the trust our Founding Fathers placed in us."

Understandably, the first impulse upon reading passages like this is to simply roll one's eyes and dismiss the writer as an overly dramatic fantasist composing an ode to a time and place that exists only within the pages of New American.  While this may be true in many cases, it would be wrongheaded to assume it is always so, since many emo-cons are susceptible to the allure of people who able to express lament in such romantic terms.  By employing patronization, you can achieve one of two goals -- either of which is desirable.  For instance:

"Indeed, it is truly a tragic day in the history of humankind.  The America in which I grew up has ceased to exist, and all that is left of it is a once-revered, tattered scrap of paper called The Constitution of the United States of America.  I mourn the loss of this indescribably glorious experiment in human freedom, and curse the bastards who trampled it beneath their filthy, tyrannical jackboots so that my grandchildren shall never see a day free of bondage.  I shall now go and cut myself, and revel in the sweet numbness that only the sweet nectar of Mansinthe can deliver upon my tortured soul."

By replying in such a manner, you will provoke a reaction that will make your day, whether the original author is actually an emo-con, or just some florid literary scion of Robert Welch.  In the case of the purple prose wielding conspiracy monger, you will inspire the kind of rage that will compel a response that makes the original passage read like the nutritional information on a box of saltines.  However, if the person happens to be an emo-con who has fallen under the spell of such a person, you will have established a rapport by invoking Marilyn Manson's brand of absinthe and the gloomy language that is the currency of emo-conservatism.  You can then exploit the emotional connection you've created to establish your emo-cred, and perhaps set the emo-con on the path to reason.

John Stuart Mill once wrote, "A profound conviction raises a man above the feeling of ridicule."  And that is true enough.  However, emo-conservatism isn't profound and has very little to do with conviction.  It's merely an expression of antipathy toward people who don't agree with whatever it is the particular emo-con believes.  And emo-cons are capable of having some widely divergent beliefs.  So, you see, emo-conservatism isn't a belief system or a philosophy.  It is merely an attitude.  As such, it makes a wonderful target for ridicule.

In employing ridicule against the emo-con, the object isn't necessarily to bring about a change in mindset.  Ridicule isn't a very effective tool toward that end as it tends to harden the position of its victim, and often leads to his becoming radicalized.  Ideally, this will lead the emo-con to ultimately become overly forthright about what he truly believes, which is frequently so off-the-wall that, upon realizing that he has outed himself, he will slink away in horrified embarrassment, never to be heard from again.

Say, for example, you have read a post at Michelle Malkin's blog concerning, Rachel Ray's recent appearance in a Dunkin' Donuts ad wearing a scarf which some people insist was a keffiyeh.  And, since you're not a lunatic, you just don't see what the big deal is.  To you, it looks much more like what is commonly known as "a freakin' scarf".  So, in order to let it be known that not all conservatives buy into kind of conspiracy mongering that Malkin often engages in at her blog, you decide to post a response that goes something like this:

"Good grief!  It's just a scarf.  A keffiyeh is a very specific kind of garment with a very specific kind of pattern worn in a very specific way.  What Rachel Ray was wearing bore no resemblance to a keffiyeh, and I think Michelle has jumped her third or fourth shark on this one."

Shortly following your response, you can expect the emo-con to chime in with his own.  Likely, it will be along these lines:

"None are so blind as those who will not see.  It has become fashionable among many of the trust fund radicals and those living the soap-free lifestyle to wear what are called 'peace scarves' in order to show allegiance and solidarity with the Palestinians.  Michelle is right about this, and I suspect that those who are attacking her are the same people who support open borders and selling out our national sovereignty.  They obviously don't care about national security, or they would be doing everything they can to stop the mainstreaming of radical islamic violence.  This country is going to hell in a handbasket because of all this PC bullcrap."

Amused at this response, you decide to address the charge that you are somehow an advocate of open borders who doesn't care about national sovereignty or security, and that your views are somehow driven by political correctness.  And, so, you respond thusly:

"Look, I understand that there are many people who visit Michelle's site because of her advocacy of border security.  But, honestly, is there any subject on the face of the earth that you people won't use as a springboard to rail against the Mexicans?  This blog entry was about a bunch of kooks going nuts over a scarf.  Michelle saw it as an opportunity to get herself showered with adulation for standing up for the apparent right of people to never see anything that looks like a scarf, because a keffiyeh is a scarf-like object which, if we let down our guard for one moment, will bring untold death and destruction to our shores and the end of America as we know it.  Just like the Mexicans."

This will invariably inspire unspeakable rage in the emo-con.  His face will become a carmine vision of indignation obliterating the emo-con's normally blue-tinged palor as he frantically pecks, backspaces, and re-pecks out every third word in response to your ridicule.

"Isn't it just like one of you leftwing hacks to denigrate true conservatives?  All you know how to do is attack people who care about the future of this nation and don't want to see it absorbed into one big North American Union with the socialists in Canada and all those illiterate criminals in May-hee-co.  You try to tell us to ignore the Trans-Texas Corridor even though there is evidence that proves it is the start of the NAFTA Superhighway, which will run from our southern to northern borders, effectively eliminating both.  Look it up on the internet!  The plans are all right there in the Security and Prosperity Partnership!  Look at the back of the North Carolina driver's license, which already has the logo for the North American Union!  And there are plans for all American driver's licenses to have the same logo!  But, then, you already knew all of this.  You're obviously one of the people who want it to happen.  Unfortunately for you, there are people like me and Michelle who won't let you ram it down our throats."

Voila!  You have just caused the emo-con to connect Rachel Ray and Dunkin' Donuts to the conspiracy to fold the entire North American continent into a borderless superstate.  And, so, you say in response:

"So, not only can Rachel Ray make an entire gourmet meal in sixty minutes.  She can also change the map of the world with a scarf.  That's pretty impressive, and I admit, merits some pretty close scrutiny."

Well done!

Ignoring

Finally, if patronizing and ridiculing don't seem to be working, there is always the option of ignoring the emo-con.  This, however, is the least effective, and potentially the most dangerous of all options.  Essentially, this is what the majority of the online conservative movement has been doing over the past few years.  And, it hasn't worked very well.  The only saving grace of this technique is that it grants its user some peace of mind.  

But, it's a false peace, which became most obvious during the recent controversy over the online community at Barack Obama's campaign web site.  Having assured themselves that no one would ever take seriously the malarial rantings of one of its contributors, the administrators allowed an anti-Semitic screed to be posted on Obama's official campaign site.  Needless to say, some conservatives jumped on the piece with both feet and used it as an illustration of the kind of supporters that the Obama campaign attracts.

While it may be true that it is unfair to attribute the opinions of web site commenters and contributors to the person they are supporting, fairness doesn't really matter.  As many emo-cons are quick to point out, politics is war.  And, they are very serious about it.  They approach politics in very much the same way that propagandists approach disinformation in wartime, though they may not always be cognizant of the fact that it is disinformation.

For the past few years, various conspiracy theories have been bubbling in the comments sections of blogs and in discussion forums.  It is often left to other commenters to swat these theories down, but doing so doesn't really have much impact.  After all, people who visit blogs and discussion forums do so because they find the people who run them persuasive and grant them a degree of authority.  So, simply allowing commenters to hash things out among themselves while the guy running the show stays above the fray amounts to handing over a fertile piece of ground on your property to a marijuana growers association.  The seeds will turn into weeds.

Pretty soon, a strange phenomenon began to occur.  Conservative blogs and discussion forums began to devolve into gathering places for the chronically dyspeptic, and pretty soon, you had border hawks consorting with anti-war libertarians consorting with anti-war liberals consorting with anti-free trade populists consorting with paleoconservatives.  From this, two factions were born:  the Ron Paul revolution and the emo-cons.  The emo-cons are essentially those churlish conservatives who, like so many suburban teenagers, have grown disenchanted because the Ron Paul folks don't really like them, and the regular Republicans don't pay enough attention to them.

Neither fully accepted, nor rejected, they simply long to feel something to remind them that they're alive.  And, so, in their longing inspire some reaction beyond disregard, they act out in ways that guarantee a reaction from those around them: anything is better than being taken for granted.  Like the emotionally numb suburban kid with a fondness for wearing black nail polish, lipstick, and clothes, he cuts himself to feel something.  Only, in the case of the emo-con, instead of using a razor blade, he advocates an Obama victory.

It's hard to say how many of the emo-cons we'll find dangling from a doorknob with a studded leather belt for a noose this fall.  It could be just a few, or it could turn out to be a big, Gothic Jonestown massacre.  But, if it turns out to be a black-clad version of The Peoples Temple, it will be the fault of so many above-the-fray conservatives.  And, it won't be because of a failure to indulge the emo-cons.  It will be because, for too long, too many conservatives pretended they weren't there.

An insidiously stubborn idea has taken hold in some corners of the conservative movement as the Republican Party sets off on its quest to rediscover its identity.  Apparently, after too many hours in the sweat lodge, some conservatives have emerged having experienced apocalyptic visions leading them to believe that in order to restore the true, natural order of things, the conservative movement must set itself ablaze in the hope that new life will spring forth from the ashes.  In order to start the fires, they believe that conservatives must withold support for John McCain and allow Barack Obama to be elected to the White House.

Given the current sorry state of the Republican Party and seeming aimlessness of the conservative movement, I must admit that the imagery conjured up by such thoughts does make it a tempting idea.  But, for the reasons I lay out below (and many others I've yet to consider, I'm sure), it's a bad idea.

The Economy:  The marauders of conservatism believe that John McCain's opposition to the Bush tax cuts in 2001, and his use of what they quite reasonably believe is class warfare rhetoric, prove that he is not an economic conservative.  This leads them to conclude that once in office, McCain will pursue an agenda that will do serious harm to the economy, leading conservatives and the Republican Party to be saddled with the blame, permanently damaging the conservative movement.

So, in order to prevent this damage from occurring, they reason that by allowing Barack Obama to be elected, he will be able to implement an economic policy with the help of a Democrat-controlled House and Senate that will be so disastrous that voters will be chastened by their decision to put them in power, and will never make such a stupid mistake again.  As someone recently put it to me, if the economy is going to tank, it would be better to "let the Democrats take the hit."  This relies on a couple of variables that are far from certain at this point.

First, you have to assume that the economy will actually tank, which given its cyclical nature, is an even bet at best.  In 1992, when Bill Clinton managed to get himself elected to the White House, the economy had already begun a recovery from one of the briefest recessions in the nation's history.  And, while it's true that two years into his administration he managed to lose both houses of Congress, giving control to the GOP for the first time in forty years, it wasn't as a result of the economy's performance so much as it was a visceral rejection of an agenda that tacked far more harshly toward the left than the public was willing to tolerate.  Also, there was a stench of corruption that hung over the administration, as well as a series of embarrassing failures in staffing the cabinet and enacting the Clinton agenda.

So, while it may seem strategic to ghoulishly hope for the collapse of the economy under an Obama administration, it's far from a sure bet.  And, to use the experience of past Democratic administrations as a template is to assume that all of the unpopular, and none of the popular characteristics of those administrations will show up in Obama's.  Furthermore, even in the rosiest (as it were) of scenarios, where the wheel come off the entire operation in the first two years, you have to assume that the Democrats will be blamed and that the GOP will benefit.  Again, this is far from certain, given the success that the Democrats will likely enjoy in the upcoming Congressional elections, despite spiraling gas prices and the struggling economy that have come about during its tenure.

But all of this doesn't in itself point to a rationale for actively supporting John McCain's candidacy.  It only spells out the reasons why conservatives shouldn't bank on Democrat ineptitude as a herald for a conservative resurgence.  So, you may ask, why should conservatives support McCain?

Well, for beginners, McCain has already pledged to maintain the Bush tax cuts beyond their sunset in 2010.  His reasoning for doing so is that he would view their expiration as a de facto tax increase, in which case he is right and there's hardly a conservative who would argue against that point.  So, while many economic/fiscal conservatives may be apprehensive about McCain's enthusiasm for tax cuts, particularly for those in higher brackets, there is at least some solace to be found in his hostility for tax increases.

But, there is also reason for conservatives to support McCain as a tax cutter.  While some may still be dismayed at his past rhetoric in opposition to tax cuts for the highest earners, there is good reason to believe that it was largely politically strategic rather than an expression of deep-seated populist inclinations.  After all, one would be hard pressed to find a single populist in history who favored reducing corporate tax rates from 35% to 25%.  And, one would be even harder pressed to find an economic conservative who wouldn't favor such a cut, which would bring the US closer to corporate tax rates employed by our trading partners and competitors. 

So, while it is unclear that an Obama administration will necessarily bring about economic calamity of such magnitude that it will guarantee a resurgence of conservatism, it seems abundantly clear that McCain's proposed cuts in corporate tax rates, as well as his proposed tax credits for research and development and the first-year deductibility of investment in equipment and technology will provide significant benefits to the economy.  This would certainly have better long term impact than Obama's promise to roll back the tax cuts which President Bush enacted and McCain now pledges to extend.

National Security:  While some conservatives have grown weary of America's involvement in Iraq as a consequence of a poorly managed post-war insurgency, the vast majority still view victory as ultimately attainable and necessary.  Some may argue that America has already lost too much in the pursuit of establishing a democracy in a place where democracy isn't a deeply ingrained tradition and has shown itself to be a rather iffy proposition in the past.  This is a fair point, but in the end, it is not the sole point of the exercise.

Our current presence in the region is largely a consequence of failures in previous administrations to show resolve in America's defense of its interests abroad.  A series of flaccid-to-non-existent responses to challenges and attacks by terrorist groups and a lack of retaliation of any kind against their state sponsors understandably led hostile regimes and their terrorist proxies to feel comfortable that attacks on our interests would bring more benefits than costs.  Therefore, America came to be seen as a weak-willed, impotent behemoth tied down by the lilliputian forces of Islamic fundamentalism and its own fear of ruffling the legalistic feathers of our erstwhile diplomatic allies, as well as our own State Department.

This feckless vision of American foreign policy has already reared its head in Barack Obama's campaign in both its incoherence as well as its reflexive inclination toward appeasement.  Already, we have seen shifting definitions of "pre-condition" and "preparation" along with an overall predisposition toward dialogue with heads of state whose stated desires include the complete destruction of one of our greatest strategic allies, Israel.  Worse still, the dialogue being sought centers around the acquisition of nuclear technology that would no doubt be used to bring about that destruction.  This is akin to police negotiating with a hostage taker over what sort of weapons he is allowed to use and what demands he will be allowed to make before he takes the hostages.

John McCain recognizes this, and has stated flatly that he will not be a party to negotiations with rogue nations until they have demonstrated a cessation of their pursuits and a recognition of Israel's right to exist as a sovereign nation.  He understands that sitting across a negotiating table from dangerous thugs only grants them a air of credibility and legitimizes their most nefarious aims.  Barack Obama, on the other hand, would grant a morally level playing field to some of the most repugnant dictators and fanatics the world has ever known on the fatuous assumption that there is some common ground to be found.  History has demonstrated the disastrous folly of granting legitimacy to the aims of those who seek the domination of other nations in pursuit of power and grandeur.

Conservatives who fail to recognize the gravity of the differences between John McCain and Barack Obama on this issue have lost sight of the immense toll that appeasement imposes on nations through the interruption and loss of life.  And, while it may be tempting to hope that the fallout of wrongheaded foreign policy will only be felt by the party that perpetrates it, the potential global devastation that could come as a result of it far exceeds not only the political gains that could possibly be realized from it; it would likely exceed the devastation of any war the world has ever known.

The Courts:  Of all the issues that have take precedence within the conservative movement over the past thirty years, none has been more hard-fought than the shape of the federal courts.  While at times I've been skeptical of the overall influence that the conservative legal community has held over the larger agenda of the movement as a whole, it is undeniably a crucial component of reining in the power and scope of the federal government, which is ultimately the goal of conservatism.  This could very well be the biggest obstacle to conservative support for John McCain, given his history with the Gang of Fourteen and McCain-Feingold.

And, while the issues underlying these matters are of great importance to conservatives, I would submit that the fallout from them is less grave than McCain's most vociferous critics contend.  In the case of the Gang of Fourteen, there is a case to be made that its emergence has been to the overall benefit of conservatives.  While many conservative legal activists were spoiling for a confrontation over the legitimacy of judicial filibusters, it's far from certain, given the composition of the court at the time, that the outcome would have favored Senate Republicans.  Furthermore, given the political climate at the time, it's even less certain that it would have been an issue that reaped any benefits.  And, not to put too fine a point on the matter, considering the composition of the Senate as it currently stands, not to mention as it likely will be come November, the idea of judicial filibusters looks much more palatable than it did a couple of years ago.  McCain's efforts in that regard guaranteed the confirmation of some excellent judges, which is undeniably a good thing.  Sadly, it left a lot of nominations in limbo, but there was no guarantee that many -- if not most -- of those nominations woudln't have simply been rejected.  I would also submit that there is even less certainty that the courts would have intervened in Senate business due to the separation of powers, but that's a debate for another day.

With regard to McCain-Feingold, I was staunchly opposed to its passage just as most conservatives were.  I do feel that it was an unnecessary restriction on free speech rights, and that it was an overreach by the judiciary.  But, the fact remains that the President signed it into law, and the Supreme Court held it to be Constitutional.  Still, that's not the end of the story, as courts have already held that some provisions go to far, and there's no reason to believe that the battle is over on the issue.  Many conservatives question whether or not McCain would be willing to appoint justices who would undermine his signature piece of legislation, and that's a legitimate question in my mind.  However, he has pledged to appoint justices in the mold of Samuel Alito and John Roberts, and he has surrounded himself with some highly respected legal advisors in his campaign.  There is reason for optimism that he appoint solid conservative judges irrespective of how they feel about his campaign finance reform legislation.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, has shown absolutely no predisposition toward appointing judges who are even faintly acquainted with the concept of judicial restraint.  In fact, has explicitly expressed a disdain for judicial restraint and shown an inclination toward activism when Justice Alito appeared before the Senate for confirmation:

"Both a [conservative Justice Antonin] Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time," he said during the Roberts confirmation hearings. "What matters at the Supreme Court is those 5% of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction will only get you through 25 miles of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.

"In those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart."

Given the sentiments Obama expressed during Alito's confirmation, is there any doubt as to the sort of judges he will seek out in staffing the nation's courts?  And, given the fact that there will likely be two, possibly three, retirements from the Supreme Court in the course of the next four years, how wise is it for conservatives to hope for the worst in order to usher in the best?

The makeup of the court will likely be set for a generation in the next four years.  For conservatives to relinquish the chance to mold the Supreme Court into a more originalist shape in a pique of ideological disillusionment would not only constitute a missed opportunity, but would compound the problems that we face today, and perpetuate them for another 20 - 30 years.  Given the resources that have been expended on this front, and the enormity of the consequences of surrender, it would seem unthinkable to any conservative to cede this unique opportunity to place conservative justices on the court, rather than allow another generation of judicial activism to take hold, possibly never to be undone.

So, while many conservatives are dismayed with the Republican Party as it now exists, there is no benefit to be gained by sentencing another generation to a life of unfettered liberal activism in the courts, the consequences of an incompetent, incoherent foreign policy, and the confiscatory taxes and ever-increasing burden of entitlement spending that will be foisted on it by a Democratic president seeking to undo what precious little has been accomplished in our most recent squandered opportunity.  Now is not the time to punish America in the quest to mete out recriminations against politicians, no matter how badly they betrayed us.  It's a time to plow forward and redouble our efforts in bringing honest, genuine, principled conservative governance to the people.  As bad as things may seem in the village today, burning it down is not going to save it.

Of all the insidious conservative rationales for witholding support from John McCain, the most foolish one has to be the idea that by allowing Barack Obama, Republicans will save the party from being redefined leftward.  Yet, some clearly not-stupid people cling to this canard as a justification for abstention.  What this amounts to is an act of petulance gussied up in the finery of lofty principle.

These intractable conservatives have convinced themselves that a McCain victory in the fall will be interpreted by the press as a rejection of the core principles of the Republican Party by the rank and file.  However, there is no reason that this must be the case.  There are other ways to interpret a McCain victory, and the responsibility for how it is ultimately portrayed rests in the hands of Republicans themselves.  A vote for McCain need not be a vote for a cap-and-trade system for reducing carbon emissions when it can more accurately be described as a vote against windfall profits taxes and extreme regulatory controls.

But, in the end, a McCain victory won't be interpreted in either way.  When the election is over, and the media outlets start pouring over the exit poll results, the winner is going to be defined by the war in Iraq.  McCain supporters won't be going to the polls because they think he has the best answer to the global warming/climate change "crisis".  They won't be going to the polls to show appreciation for his efforts toward campaign finance reports.  They won't be going to the polls because they believe he was right to have opposed the Bush tax cuts in 2001.  None of those things will register very highly, if at all, among the priorities of McCain voters.

Instead, the winner will be decided on three issues, any one of which could take precedence over the others between now and November:  (1) Gas prices, (2) the economy, and (3) the war in Iraq.  None of McCain's stances on any of these issues is a threat to conservative orthodoxy or the traditional Republican Party platform.

However, if Barack Obama wins the election, you can rest assured that it will be interpreted by the press as a wholesale rejection of the every bit of conservatism that marked the Bush years by the voting public as a whole.