The New Republic

Sara Palin's worst attribute, as far as I was concerned, was her high pitched whiney voice. I was terrified that we'd all have to listen to her talk for the next four, eight,or even sixteen years. Since losing, you'll notice, she has not shut up. Not one little bit. Imagine if she had WON!

-

November 8, 2008 at 4:30am

The reason they're cheering Palin is that they're badly disoriented right now and need something to cheer for. That doesn't mean that in the cold light of day, the key people she needs are actually going to back her for a serious presidential run. To make that happen you need big players like the "Bush Pioneers" and at least some GOP elected officials to stake their time, money and credibility on you. Bush got people like that behind him for his 2000 run because he was a reassuring figure to them, the son of a president they all respected, a protege of that president's top officials, etc. Palin would approach a 2012 race already seriously battered and carrying a lot of baggage, not all of it containing silk boxer shorts. Recall that the Obama campaign largely ignored her; her GOP primary opponents wouldn't, and if she actually entered pre-primary debates with them she'd find herself criticized and cross-examined in ways that she couldn't dismiss as the ill will of "liberal elites" because it would be coming from other Republicans. And all this assumes that the next few years in Alaska will be kind to her, which I don't expect they actually will be. The way she is apparently programmed to use her public role for her own advantage (vendettas, expense accounts, shopping sprees etc.), then lie about it, will continue to catch up with her. As conservatives like to point out, people's basic character doesn't really change. Politically, Palin's already had her 15 minutes, I think.

- JSmith125

November 8, 2008 at 7:23am

As a Democrat who enthusiastically voted for Barack Obama I believe it would be a huge mistake to misread the election results as a mandate to take the country liberal. The United States clearly is a moderate, middle of the road country in terms of its politics and if the new administration pushes too far to the left there will be a backlash which will cause the Democrats to lose big time in the next Congressional elections. This election was a vote against Bush/Cheney, the Iraq War, torture, the response to Hurricane Katrina, and Sarah Palin. If John McCain had ran a better campaign and chosen a qualified running mate the results would have been much, much closer, and that is not a mandate to take the country liberal. When a liberal State like California that votes 70% for Obama also votes to overturn gay marriage this should give the left wing pause as to how far they can push the country. What Americans want from Obama is the economy restored, the healthcare system restructured to benefit everyone fairly, the environment a priority, etc. The American people are middle of the road on social issues and misreading the election will cost the Democrats dearly next time.

- Mark Jeffery Koch

November 8, 2008 at 8:07am

The great thing about Palin is that she's still young--only 44. I sure hope she's the Republican nominee in 2012. And in 2016 too if she wants. and 2020, 2024. She could keep running all the way into the 2030s for all I care. Would be fine with me.

- Mencken Bacon

November 8, 2008 at 8:57am

The hysteria among Republicans post election is frightening. I think it is interesting that everyone is blaming McCain for losing because he is too centrist - if that explains why he lost the election then why did so many representatives and Senators also lose elections - surely they were not all running on centrist themes? The real problem is that the Republican Administration did not address the concerns of the average American and they abused their power when they had it. The party is bankrupt on ideas to lead in the 21st century. More tax cuts and deregulation are not going to solve our problems. We need to address real concerns like health care affordability and access,social security, education and environmental concerns. The conservative approach appears to be to ignore them or deny they are issues. Reagan was a great president for his times - but even he would see today's situation is different than the 1980's and requires new solutions. Tom DeLay recently wrote a piece focusing on organization and fundraising as the way back for the Republican Party. There was nothing about "ideas" and ethics. Therein lies the problem. Newt Gingrich is right when he says "Real change requires real change". Until the leadership "gets it" the Republican Party will be irrelevant.

- Pat

November 8, 2008 at 9:11am

This piece lacks a clear definition of "conservatism." It confuses the statist ideology of the neoconservative movement, in both domestic and foreign policy, with conservatism. This has not been a conservative administration at all, it was a neoconservative one, bent on expanding the role of government both domestically and abroad with catastrophic results for the United States. There is consensus, at present, inside the GOP of what should conservatism include. Palin represents the Nativist-Christian Right wing of the party, and this is precisely the wing that has struck an alliance with the neoconservatives, Jeb Bush is attempting to lead the Main Street faction which is both xenophile and opposed to big government. I agree with Chait that the GOP is a slow learner, but he is looking at the GOP from the outside, without a clue about its internal dynamics. Until the Palin wing is reduced, the GOP will continue to lose votes. I voted for Obama precisely because of the nativism the GOP fell prey to during the last four years.

- Jack Kalpakian

November 8, 2008 at 9:23am

The Republican party has alienated, blacks, women, hispanics, gays, educated whites and young people. If there is no increase in uneducated white rural men in the next four years, then something else will have to change.

- Terry Garahan

November 8, 2008 at 9:29am

In 2004 President Bush got 51% of the vote. In 2008 Barack Obama got 52% of the vote. But that doesn't tell the whole story. Some factors to consider are that Obama did indeed "have a righteous wind at his back. Even though gas prices had more than doubled to historic highs, nearly 90% of the people thought the country was on the wrong track, there were financial scandals, the economy spiraled into funk, and the Obama campaign spent nearly 3 times as much money garnering 52% of the vote as Bush spent getting his 51%. Those are the facts. It seems to me that the author's conclusions are unwarranted.

- Mike Sorensen

November 8, 2008 at 9:48am

"The enthusiasm generated by Palin shows that the party intends, wittingly or not, to replicate not just Bush's policies but his whole operating style. She is the most Bush-like figure conceivable. Jeb Bush would be a far more dramatic departure from the incumbent than her. Her utter lack of interest in policy, her obsession with certitude ("you can't blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission"), her folksiness masking incoherence--all reflect the style of The Decider. The way Palin filled her government with grossly unqualified high school cronies eerily apes even the Bushian qualities that many conservatives have come to regret." The Republican Party must find a leader that is Obamian in nature: youthful, intelligent, self-controlled, hopeful. Palin lacks intellect. She is not the future of my party. I respect her. I cannot place my hope in her - nor can the Republicans. The Right needs new ideas that will generate traditional philosophies. My fingers are crossed.

- S. Thomas Summers

November 8, 2008 at 9:56am

Wow. This was the most succinct and compelling analysis of what happened that I have read this whole election cycle. As a Hillary supporter who voted for Obama, I want to thank you for not accusing "liberal" of thinking that Obama is the messiah or that it is "hate" that gave me pause about Palin. And I especially want to thank you about the analysis of Palin because it helps me articulate what it is about her that both amuses and scares me. Thank you, thank you.

- lais

November 8, 2008 at 10:03am

Republicans need to find leaders who want to excel at governing. The Republican Party has practiced too much the idea that government is the enemy of the people. Americans are sick of that approach. Obviously, what is needed in the Republican Party are leaders who can think on their own and not sell out to ideologues, Fox News, and Right-wing talk radio. As long as the leaders sell out to the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity and that ilk, it will be rejected by a majority of the voters. People want the government to solve the problems that it must solve instead of allowing chaos. Too many of the leaders in the conservative movement are enamored with their own issues and not thinking about average Americans. They would be in much worse trouble if it were not for the Religeous Right giving them a power base founded on wedge issues that have very little to do with their well-being. Even conservative Christians are getting tired of the same old tired mantra of the Republican Party. The leaders of the party are really bringing nothing to those people. Bush, himself, turned his presidency over to Cheney and Rowe, and never wanted to think for himself. That was his tragic mistake. Maybe the Republicans think they can continue those ideas and be successful. I am sure the Democrats hope so.

- peter777

November 8, 2008 at 10:11am

The real question for the Republican Party will be how to meet the challenges of an incumbent president who's actions will in part be oriented toward his reelection and his appeal to the center. It will be especially difficult for republicans to identify what their core values and messages should be when they themselves are still torn in fundamental ways. Until a critical mass of republicans correctly self diagnoses the root causes of their dramatic failures in the past 8+ years, even a modestly competent Democratic party can hold the upper hand for at least one more presidential election cycle. I am delighted to see Obama pick Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff -- this is the first step for the Obama administration in assumig adult control over an often juvenile democratic congress under Pelosi. Congress is an unwashed and gnarly beast regardless of the administration, the next president seems to be looking at some controls even the 1st day after the election. This is a very good sign.

- vic winkler

November 8, 2008 at 10:27am

Hey, Jonathan! Sssshhhh! Why do you have to point out the obvious to them? Let them figure it out for themselves by about, say, 2024.

- JP

November 8, 2008 at 10:29am

Enough of the Palin bashing. When you are governor of Alaska you don't have a bunch of Ivy League pencil necked geeks with which to build your staff. I have been to Alaska and I own a house in a NE state run by Ivy league types. Alaska is run much better. Period. The reason Republicans lost the election was that the media was in the tank for Dems for years, and the GOP does not have the will or ability to fight back. In addition, the GOP ran an uninspiring candidate that could not differentiate himself from Mr. Obama. Palin's advantage is that she can speak directly to the people. The press hates that.

- DanW

November 8, 2008 at 10:34am

No, the GOP did not take note of what happened on election night. Has the GOP ever stopped to consider why John McCain ultimately became their nominee? Because all of the Republican electorate voted in the primaries, not just the hard core conservative right of the party. He didn't win the Presidency, among many other reasons, because he courted that right wing base and not the more centrist middle - of either the Republicans OR the Democrats. If the GOP decides to further embrace their far right ideology and ignore the realities that the future electorate are going to be increasingly younger, more educated, culturally diverse, and most importantly not as consumed by the culture wars that their parents and grandparents have let fuel the exclusive and divisive nature of the party, they will spend a long time in the hinterlands of the political world. I, personally, hope that they DO ignore the realities and retreat farther to the right because I, along with many others - both Republican and Democrat - are sick and tired of being bludgeoned with divisiveness rather than brought together by the things upon which we can find common ground. Oh, and if the GOP really does want to have a viable voice for the future? - how about asking a diverse pool of YOUNG, MODERATE Republican's what is important to them instead of sequestering the old guard in some mansion to 'find their voice' - that voice is old and tired and no one wants to hear it anymore. The GOP ideologues love to say that we are really a center right nation - no we are not. We are a center nation and until the GOP comes to terms with that they will flounder on the outskirts. Good riddance.

- andee

November 8, 2008 at 11:33am

You've put your finger on it -- for many hardcore Republican voters, Sarah Palin is a George W. Bush they can believe in. In fact, she's more of a George W. Bush than George W. Bush, the latter now having eight years of experience being "president," if you want to call that a presidency. The Republican Party is at a crossroads, and unfortunately for the country, they are clearly heading down Palin's know-nothing path. In the absence of a transformational figure in their own party -- someone with practical integrity and competence, not just the kinds you talk about on the stump -- Republicans will continue to push away the center, and they'll be wandering in the wilderness for a very long time.

- bdgreen

November 8, 2008 at 11:41am

"...around the time thoughtful conservatives started to realize that George W. Bush might not in fact be a combination of Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill" Are you kidding me? This quote right here is the problem with conservative thinking in the last 15 years. Complete delusion, married to rabid partisanship. Country first my eye, these people deny their corruption, hypocrisy, arrogance, disregard for law, intoloreance and disrespect for anybody, any idea, and any presence outside of their party or worldview. They have become more out of touch with the nation by trying to force their bad ideas and fake morality on the USA. How they possibly thought shrub was ever anything respectable let alone someone great is laughable. It was obvious during the California energy crisis that the W whitehouse was not a defender of law when they let their buddies at Enron run wild and siphon billions out of the state instead of using their regulatory powers to manage a bad situation. Blatant corruption, too big to ignore, is the conservative problem. Until they can come to God and face this fact they will shrivel and become irrelevant except to the ignorant, hillbillies and religious nuts who are the monster they created so they could have enough votes to pander to the rich while letting the rest of the country struggled under their purposeful neglect. I only hope that the forces of intelligence can remain vigilant and speak loudly against this ideology which has weakened the nation in so many areas. When all the secrets are revealed and the records unsealed bush will be recorded as one of the worst mistakes this country has ever made. W stands for WRONG! Maybe they should change their name to Wepublican... They are the wrong party. And you know, watching the train wreck of McCain's integrity during his campaign was like watching a miniseries of this "end justifies the means" ideology of the conservatives. Anyone who loves this country should work to marginalize republicans forever so they can't grab the steering wheel again. And never forget W and his damage to the nation. Yes we can.

- Craig

November 8, 2008 at 11:43am

Good article. If Palin becomes the standard bearer for the right, the country will continue to move to the left. Failure of the Republicans to recognize the national preference for competence in its leaders will lead to ongoing losses in the future.

- Eric Gage

November 8, 2008 at 12:03pm

I couldn't understand why the liberals were so rabid about Gov. Palin. You very precisely set out her qualities that disturb you. I even agree with you. I think Palin's vigor is an attractive alternative to the pallid Democrats, but I hope she stays in a supporting role in the Republican Party.

- Gayle Weber

November 8, 2008 at 12:13pm

Your analysis is brilliant, Jonathan. Palin is Bush II. Remember that for many, conservatives, the flight from W. was opportunity fleeing. He was the greatest thing since sliced bread for legions on the right, until after Katrina, when he became a national joke. Then, all of a sudden, W, was not a true conservative at all. Amazing what a hurricane (and carnage in Iraq) will do.

- liberal reformer

November 8, 2008 at 12:17pm

Sarah Palin has embarrased both Republicans and America in general. That she was allowed to almost become the next president of this country is deeply disturbing. She lost millions of votes for McCain in this election. And now with talk of her in the Senate, the horror could continue. She should concentrate on obtaining a rudimentary knowledge of American history (start with one of her kids social studies textbooks) and contemporary issues before attempting any further moves in politics.

- LosAngelesCon

November 8, 2008 at 12:27pm

It would seem as though the Bush years historical revisionism has begun in earnest. To those baffled Bush defenders, (should be apologists) you cannot cherrypick through his presidency to only find what you consider his high points to base his years on. You have to take the good and the bad. From the very beginning it was clear that this was a presidency characterized by reduced expectations which follows the conservative ideology that all government is necessarily bad. Why run government well when it isn't supposed to exist anyway. Hopefully, the American public has learned a lesson from all this. Elections do matter. And to those who feel we should only judge Bush on matters such as the success of the surge, keeping us safe the past 7 years and the creation of the No Child Left Behind Act, I say also remember, 1. War in Iraq based on lies. 2. Years of incompetance in running said war (necessitating the surge in the first place). 3. Widespread warrantless wiretapping. 4. Rampant cronyism (rendering govt agencies less effective). 5. Outing of CIA agent. 6. Underfunding of signature No Child Left Behind Act. 7. Firing of US attorneys for partisan reasons. 8. Alberto Gonzales (enough said) 9. Donald Rumsfeld (enough said) 10. Dick Cheney (enough said) 11. Excessive use of signing statements which undermine the rule of law in the first place. 12. Editing govt agency reports to suit ideology. 13. Most secretive administration in modern times, maybe ever. 14. Belief that the ends always justify the means and HOW you do things just doesn't matter. 15. Karl Rove who has taken the level of politics to such a gutter level that it may never recover. (Refer to the above #14) 16. Guantanamo Bay. 17. And last but not least, that embrace of the most undemocratic of ideals, TORTURE. This is part of a garden variety of things that I will remember from the Bush years. As baffled as the Bush people are that America doesn't give Bush enough credit for the "good times", I am baffled that they seem to keep forgetting these things. Remember, "Bush derangement syndrome", unlike the Clinton counterpart, is actually based on things Bush has or hasn't done. It's not just blind rage. It's based on a revulsion of seeing our govt effectiveness and our standing in the world diminished ON PURPOSE. That, to me, is what makes the Bush years unforgiveable.

- Wade

November 8, 2008 at 12:31pm

There is an interesting dichotomy that your article alluded to, but did not make explicit. Democrats are the "new fiscal conservatives" in a critical sense--while they do advocate government spending, they also advocate additional taxes to fund that spending, thus keeping the government solvent. Republicans on the other hand have advocated new spending (e.g. Medicare, Part D) without taxes to fund such spending. Hence, the resulting national debt and year to year deficits. Who is the more fiscally responsible party now?

- A. Mathew

November 8, 2008 at 12:31pm

Jonathan, I'm a 56 year old conservative. Grew up in a liberal Jewish household voting McGovern, Carter, and John Anderson my first three elections. Reagan influenced me towards conservatism, and I've never turned back. You have tremendous difficulty understanding the differences between Conservative, neo conservative and Rockefeller Republican principles. It's ok, most liberals have no clue when it comes to the Republican Party including my extended family who believe we all are despicable human beings. Republican principles are limited spending, free market capitalism placing Wall Street profits over Main Street workers, pro investor class, tax cuts/limited taxation, business access to cheap labor, small government, isolation unless our interests are threatened, strong defense, and laissez faire on values. The less government does the better as people are better at solving their problems than government. People like George Will Neo conservatives like Bush, Bush, McCain, Kristol share free market capitalism, business access to cheap labor, pro investor class, Wall Street over Main Street, tax cuts, strong defense, and for the most part laissez faire with values with the Republicans. However, they stray by supporting forcibly exporting democracy/nation building, big government, and big government spending solving peoples' problems hijacking what true conservatism is. True Conservatives believe in "America First" nationalistic patriotic policies including strong defense, acting militarily when we or our interests are threatened, creating a stong private sector American jobs growth environment, and promotion of traditional values. I belong to this group. This last group comrpises roughly 30% of the GOP. We're at internal war with the country clubbers in the above two groups. We don't like each other much. And the only way the GOP wins elections is when the GOP stands for America First, which was the GOP failure over Bush's 8 years. Bush was a neo conservative, not conservative. McCain more a Republican, not conservative. Neither are America first. Just hoping if I read a column from you again I hope it's more enlightened. It sounded no different from my socialist extended family. Bill Josephson

- Bill

November 8, 2008 at 1:15pm

Amen to this. If a fiscally responsible, no-foreign-entanglements, privacy-respecting GOP rears its head, let me know. I'm in.

- Susan J

November 8, 2008 at 1:21pm

"Slow learners" is the best desription yet of where Republican party and "conservative" heads are at right now...deeply buried up their own tushies. This is a keeper Jonathan.

- Dean from Oregon

November 8, 2008 at 1:36pm

The problem the Republican party faces is that many of its standardbearers have fine-tuned the art of stifling debate (Limbaugh) and demonizing all who oppose it (Rove) - strong tactics for the short term to be sure, but now costing the party dearly. As a result, middle of the road Americans now see the Republican party as the party of intolerance and absolutism: - If you're not with us you're against us (Bush); - If your ideas aren't the same as ours you're probably anti-American (Palin, Bachman); - Our fundamentalist Christian truth about when life is sacred and when not is unnegotiable and absolute (Terry Schiavo, stem cell research, abortion and death penalty); therefore it is our right to impose our truths on all Americans; I could go on... The point is not whether this is fair and accurate. The point is that this is how the Republican party is perceived, not only by its opponents (with disapproval) but also by many of its adherents (with approval). It has successfully raised many of its tenets to the level of almost religious dogma. The only solution to economic problems is tax cuts (what happens when taxes are so low they cannot be cut further?); government is always the problem and must always be reduced (what happens when there is no government anymore?); any form of national health care is wrong (how come health care in Canada costs only half of what it costs here, and yet leaves no one behind [2003 per capita spending: Canada $2998, USA: $5711 - source OECD]. Republican truths have become too simplistic for centrist Americans. Take health care. On the campaign trail McCain repeatedly derided the Canadian system as obviously inferior to the American ("Sure, we have problems, but that doesn't mean a Canadian-style system is the solution!"). But at half the cost of the US, Canada achieves a lower infant mortality rate (4.5/1000) and longer life expectancy (80.3) than the US (6.4/1000, 78.0 - figures for 2007, source US Census Bureau). US healthcare is broken, and families paying a fortune for mediocre coverage know it. Sure, that doesn't mean the Canadian system is THE solution, but the OECD lists at least 18 industrialized nations with universal health care (at $2100 - $4600 per capita), representing a wide range of different systems. Every single one of these countries has lower infant mortality and higher life expectancy than we do according to our own US Census Bureau (as an aside: all these countries also have lower abortion rates than the US). My point is not that we should adopt a Canadian style healthcare system. My point is simply that by international measures the US is not doing so well in either healthcare, public infrastructure, schooling, public finances, etc. People know this. Internet makes the statistics so easy to find. Travel abroad is not really exceptional anymore. Republicans need to acknowledge the full extent of the very real problems we face. But that means looking at who has dealt with those problems more effectively than we have (and yes, most industrialized countries have a leaner, more effective, and vastly cheaper health care system). But as long as the Limbaugh, Hannity and Rove style of "debate" dominates in the Republican party, the rank and file will continue to prefer Palin-like candidates who articulate Republican platitudes and denounce all who disagree with great flair but without thought. I have no idea how we turn this around, but until we become a party with new ideas that acknowledge the real problems we face, the GOP will be little more than a Gray Old Party in the wilderness.

- Archaeoman

November 8, 2008 at 1:58pm

The GOP base has become enamored with an ideology that does not map well to the challenges of the real world. They have embraced the poisonous personalities of their conservative talk heros. Rather than taking an objective look at their party's failures they respond with denial, accusations and defiance. Their pride, lack of introspection and new ideas may prove to keep them from power for a long time.

- Mike in Tampa

November 8, 2008 at 2:03pm

Dear Mr. Chait: You appear to share a misconception with many of your fellows on the Left: to wit, that George W. Bush was on the ballot this year. He was not, and the ranks of voters who went to the polls this year were faced with the choice between a unapologetic socialist Democrat and a Populist democrat (capitalizations intended). We've had our detail-oriented, technocratic, nuanced, non-meatheaded President before. His name was Jimmy Carter, and the world eventually realized he was a joke. This is the fate that awaits Barack Obama.

- Don Townswick

November 8, 2008 at 2:24pm

I am a political agnostic. I find the greatest threat to my country coming more from the left than the right.But, this voting behavior does not make me a conservative. I have simply concluded that the Democrat party political machine unchecked is simply a bad thing. Tust me I live in Rhode Island, and no more proof than our current mess is recguired. The Republicans seem willfully determined to abdicate from the throne of viable second party. It is a throne, aroyal position in a democracy to be one of the two parties. Yet these conservatives are so derelict of duty.Their only concern is to keep alive an ideology they call conservatism. Winning elections is not important to them, though they think more of their thinking is the key to victory. Their leader most public is a deranged meglomaniac talk show host. He is smart, and may have a great IQ but is lacking in mental honesty and true education. All fo them are in such denial. Do not get me wrong much of what I believe you would label right wing, for instance I stand with the late great M Crichton on global warming. I even told my friends I was going to write in Petraeus and Crichton as my choices for the white house. They would be totally superior to the two clowns who just won the election. But, neither of them could pass muster with the talk radio folks, the social conservatives, and these pundit types you mention above. So it is time not for a third party. We have third, fourth, and fifth parties and they are not relevant, as the GOP will be in short order. Time for a second party that is viable. I say call it the MAP. The Modern Americam Party needs you General. Now finding somebody to fill Crichton's shoes is the next step. Won't be easy, but we must.

- malm

November 8, 2008 at 2:27pm

53% to 46% is not an "overwhelming electoral defeat." Both candidates received at least 45% of the vote, which means that the remaining 10% determined the outcome. Whatever pathologies may afflict the GOP, and there are quite a few, gross loathing by the electorate is not one of them.

- nbarry

November 8, 2008 at 2:49pm

What a galaxy of republicans you cite - "Starbursts" Lowry, "Studly Rumsfeld" biographer Midge Decter (table dancing?), public economic jackass or crook (you decide) Kudlow, and William Kistol - no characterizaion at the risk of carpal tunnel syndrome. Don't know Jeffery Bell, but he might want to carefully consider his rep in being associated with these types. Slow might apply, but learners?

- jemerk

November 8, 2008 at 3:22pm

What part don't they understand? Uh, the 47/52 popular vote. Clinton, Reagan, every other "landslide" won overwhelmingly, not on the margin in two or three important states.

- Corey

November 8, 2008 at 3:26pm

The Republicans "may" want some a little less "meatheaded" that George Jr???? I didn't't think it was possible to get any less meatheaded than George As for some sage Thinking he was a combination of Lincoln and Churchill..... immpossible. Lincoln and Churchill could converse in more than monosysllables

- Kent

November 8, 2008 at 3:46pm

thank you for getting beneath the "folksy flattery" or mean-spirited attacks on Palin to the meat of the matter. she, like many conservatives in politics, doesn't seem to want to think anywhere near as deeply as the probing conservative thinkers in print and media. listen up, politicos!

- kate

November 8, 2008 at 4:15pm

I agree, except there might be a third, deeper reason why the Republican Party is still drifting rightward post 08 election. Its idealogically neo-con radical, think-tank base is pathologically incapable of admitting it has been wrong about everything: from fiscal irresponsibility leading to economic meltdown to torture annd domestic wiretapping as acceptable democratic weapons against terrorism to managerial ineptitude across the board - the Iraq war, the economy and Katrina. And terrified to honestly face the biggest skeleton in the closet, that the war was conceived, executed and bungled, perhaps until as late as the surge, on false premises and lies, which of course is close to an impeachable offense. To admit that is to be an accessory to a crime. Who with a reputation to save as a "thinker" would or could admit that?

- Antonio Elmaleh

November 8, 2008 at 4:18pm

Jonathan, this article is about as insulting as a "rub your face in it" article can be. What exactly are Republicans supposed to "learn"? That they should be Democrats? Look, each party faces defeat from time to time -- otherwise we wouldn't have a two-party system. But when Democrats faced defeat in 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004, the answer wasn't to abandon their core principles. It was to go back and rethink how to frame and communicate those principles in a way that makes more sense to the electorate. Obama did that, and congratulations to him. And now Republicans will go back and do the same thing. But please, enough with Democrats telling us what to do and how to do it! Just enjoy your victory -- momentary, as all victories are -- and stop hectoring us. It's condescending and very low class.

- PRC

November 8, 2008 at 4:21pm

The Republicans are thrilled with another talking head. Their goal is to definitely NOT have anyone of substance so they can all feel good about makingPalin or whoever parrot exactly what they want. To Republican leaders vapid is a highly sought quality.

- HeadCoach

November 8, 2008 at 4:36pm

Thoughtfull

- Nik Manassiev

November 8, 2008 at 5:10pm

Excellent analysis. I will admit to a touch of schadenfreude at the thought of the GOP shooting itself in the foot by nominating Sarah Palin in 2012.

- SG

November 8, 2008 at 5:21pm

idiot baby-boomer christian white men.....idiots who don't listen and never learn

- Dead elephants

November 8, 2008 at 5:52pm

So, domestic discretionary spending decreased from 3.1% of GDP to 2.8%, but then you mention the prescription drug benefit. Is this non-discretionary? It's not clear what the total effect of that bill on overall spending was per your article, but it seems relevant.

- rgrunder

November 8, 2008 at 6:09pm

Dan Quayle should have been a lesson learned.

- Geek

November 8, 2008 at 6:18pm

What a tacky, snarky little article. I doubt that Sarah Palin will want to be a part of the Republican national scene, and I surely wouldn't blame her if she never left Alaska again, considering the way she was treated by the left and the press - it was the most vile and viciously personal treatment I've ever seen. I imagine that Republicans like Bobby Jindal, Mitt Romney and Mike Pence will be the party's future. I know you don't like them, but then conservatives don't much care for air-headed navel gazing. After 4 years of BO and Democrat control of both houses of Congress, this country may want to revert to more conservative leadership once again.

- MissButterfly

November 8, 2008 at 7:08pm

Why don't they just change their name to "The Evangelical Theocratic Party" We all know they won all 8 years by playing to those people, who would vote for a brain-dead drooling idiot if he or she simply recited a couple bible verses and repaeted the words gay-marriage, abortion and liberal media a few hundred times. Libertarian republicans went along with them for those years because they were afraid of the other party. But this time the Dems put up someone who is actually objectively smart and assuaged our fears. If Obama can do a half way decent job of stearing our economy strait (that's 100% better than the evangelicals did) I have a feeling the Theocrats will never win another national election. On the other hand Ron Paul raised an incredible amount of money in the primary mostly from young people. Maybe if we can get the old republican party to commit to the name change we can start calling ourselves the Republican-Libertarian party and plan for a 2012 or 2016 winning bid.

- dustyroads

November 8, 2008 at 7:22pm

My, that was an interesting sleight of hand, namely, "And, they insist, the subsequent financial collapse was not a function of Bush-era policies, but merely bad luck." I know of no conservative who believes the financial collapse was "merely bad luck," but plenty of thoughtful people who see the collapse as the inevitable outcome of policies implemented and favored by Democrats. For example, the wholesale jettisoning of all lending standards that was done at the behest of Democrats though the agency of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (organizations which carry an implicit moral hazard inasmuch as all gains are private, but losses are public) is the root cause of the housing collapse. The blatant disregard for truth displayed in this article is hardly surprising, given that your editiorial judgement of "Scott Thomas" was that his writings fit your template too well to need fact-checking.

- B Nielsen

November 8, 2008 at 7:26pm

As a former national political director for 3 of the 4 national GOP organizations (i.e. NRCC, RNC, RGA), it is obvious that there is NO "national" GOP party any longer. Many of us "conservatives" LEFT the GOP in 1984 because the GOP's leadership (RWR) cut tax rates (as WE at the NRCC had designed in 1977, and was adopted by RWR), but then after election, RWR SPENT Trillions of deficit dollars, and placed this nation deeply into debt! That is NOT a "Conservative" approach to governance. GW Bush came along and then DOUBLED the national debt to now $10 Trillion, putting this entire nation "AT-RISK!" Again, those are NOT "conservative" values. Commencing in 1972, the GOP began to be taken over by the "corporatists/fascists" who then used the BIG LIE (i.e. calling the GOP "conservative" when it was anything BUT "conservative"), to line its pockets of its CEO's in billions of American Taxpayer Dollars, year after year!! There are obvious POLITICAL "costs" to such corruption, but that then transcended to the financial "markets" that has not only endangered this Republic, but the entire world as the banks have become corrupted by such U.S. policies led by Republican Presidents and Republican Congresses via the "corpoatists/fascists." The "greatest challenge of our time is to call things by their proper name." Americans DO "get it!" If one looks at all the counties in the nation, by the "differences" between votes received by the 2004 Democratic candidate for President and that of the 2008 Democratic candidate for President, it is clear that the GOP has only one small part of the nation that it can claim to represent (about 6 southern states). Period! In short, the GOP is a DEAD PARTY! Yes, it has elected members of Congress, and some governors. BUT, those in office represent a "lag time" of what is actually occurring nationally. The GOP has "eaten its seed corn;" hence, the AGED candidates for President commencing with Nixon in '68, Ford in '76; Reagan in '80/'84; GHW Bush in '88/'92; (sans GW), and now JM in '08. That is NOT an example of a "party of the future." Ironically, WE (former GOP directors) WARNED the GOP's leadership of that fact more than a quarter century ago (I warned Cheney in a state trooper's car at the Kansas City Airport on our way to do the "post-mortem" of the '82 elections (Cheney refused to listen!)... And, your column identified persons as "conservatives" as IF they ARE "conservatives," when in fact they are "corporatists/fascists" NOT "CONSERVATIVES" at all! Those of us who ARE conservatives personally "live within our means," just as we advocate policies of our states and nation to "live within its means" that the GOP has squandered commencing with RMN in '68. As an example, the "service budget" for FY '77, was sent to Capitol Hill by then GOP President Ford. It was $50 Billion in deficit! I contacted MY boss asking that WE (then Republican Party directors on Capitol Hill) to reduce it by "$50 Billion" to "BE what WE say we ARE!" and to BALANCE the federal budget! OMB would have none of that! It remained $50 Billion in deficit and upon the loss of Pres. Ford to Gov. Carter, who then raised that deficit to "$75 Billion" for FY'77! OH did the GOP members of Congress then HOWL! Talk about fraudulent!! The GOP even then was NOT a "conservative" party, but one what was little by little being taken over by what can only be described as the "corporatists/fascists" who took full control during RWR and remain there through today. The GOP is dead as a party. It is NOT trusted by the American people. The GOP's President has a 25% approval rating by this nation's citizens; conversely 75% DISAPPROVE of the GOP's President! THAT was on purpose BY the GOP as it used the Government of the United States to enrich its corporatists/fascists benefactors knowing that by the time the bills came due to the American taxpayers, that they would be long-gone out of office, but would have become enriched by their benefactors. That HUGE, corrupt, nationally destructive, $10 Trillion national debt is but one of thousands of examples that the GOP is NOT and never has been a "conservative" party. It is a CORPORATIST/FASCIST party. Conservatives do NOT spend money they do NOT have. Conservatives do NOT put American citizens in debt. Conservatives do NOT go to "war" without the citizens approval; yet, all of the above IS what the GOP has done TO this nation's citizens. No citizen should trust another REPUBLICAN for any reason, ever again. IF the conservatives of this nation truly wish to bring an alternative system to bear via the governance of the U.S., than the one that has corrupted our nation via the Republicans, the Conservatives simply need to restructure themselves into a working party system, NOT a GOP one. I have met true conservatives in this nation who know HOW to resurrect this nation's economy without bankrupting it. But, of course that would mean that the corrupt CEO's in the investment banking industries would have to go to prison or worse; and that the corporatists/fascists would be brought to justice for their crimes against this nation's citizens. The Republican Party (post Watergate) was given a "gift" by Republicans and Democrats alike that rebuilt the GOP into a functioning "campaign" organization, only to find the corporatists/fascists taking control, and causing the POLICIES to bankrupt this nation; and to cause the U.S. to be HATED by the world for bullying, and killing, and engaging in crimes against other nations by using the U.S. military to get what the corporatists/fascists demanded (i.e. OIL!). Those men and women who have put our nation in dire RISK are the "enemies" of our nation and should be treated as such. Americans spoke loudly and clearly in the '08 elections about what citizens WANT for the U.S. A good start would be a "GI Bill" styled education program for college education for ALL Americans; another would be to exit WTO, NAFTA, and other U.S.-defeating policies, to re-establish a "manufacturing base" for this nation's economy; to provide for a NASA-styled national health care program with the same fervor as JFK's "man on the moon" project; and finally, an OPEN system of Government by the federal government to allow citizens to participate themselves without the "us vs. them" that has existed in government since the 1960's. Americans cannot live well in a "service economy." Minimum wage will NOT bring prosperity to the citizens. Education and an economic expansion plan will. Conservatives WILL support that and should LEAD that! It is self-supporting with enormous long-term benefits. So, why did the GOP Presidents from RMN through GW NOT provide those kinds of programs FOR ALL Americans? Because the GOP is dominated by the corporatists/fascists who pay themselves first from subsidies from the U.S. government/taxpayers while calling that "free enterprise" and the "free market" which is a cruel hoax on this nation's citizens and our nation's Founders! I left the GOP in '84 and took my political skills with me. After electing/running/consulting most of the GOP's statewide/congressional campaigns in my state through '84, and winning many of them in a "minority" mode, I quit the GOP BECAUSE it would NOT uphold the values of America, it TRASHED them. Today, in my home state there is not one statewide (state or federal) elected official left. And among 5 U.S. House members, only 1 Republican remains who himself is now vulnerable as the '08 results demonstrate. The entire West of the U.S. has recognized the corruption of the corporatists/fascists who own the GOP. And, the citizens have responded politically at the ballot box AGAINST the GOP. The conservatives, IF they ARE conservatives, have already left the GOP and are residing in "other" political venues more suitable to conservative' values (i.e. equality, equal protection, a strong constitution, respect, commonly shared values, and a commitment to our fellow citizens for the next generation and the next). Compare THAT to what the Republicans from RMN through GWB/Cheney have wrought to this nation. Those of us who rebuilt that party after Watergate, DO recognize the corruption of the GOP and why it needs to be rendered DOA in ensuing elections. This American did NOT put his life on the line as a Combat Officer everyday of my tour of duty, just so some fat-cat could buy a national political party and live OFF the taxpayers while calling that "the free enterprise" system! Your writer's approach had a good start, but missed the real point: The GOP is corrupt and deserves to be terminated. Conservatives need to recognize the difference between their beliefs and the actual policies that have been foisted onto the American citizens. Thanks.

- GC in Oregon

November 8, 2008 at 7:44pm

Johnny boy...you're missing the whole thing...it's the "moderate" repubs that lost this one..they got the candidate they wanted, the middle of the road guy who would win back independants and moderates....whoooeeee!! That' why we lost, moderates can't make up their minds, why listen to them? Don't be sad, Sarah will be back...remember when she was added to the ticket, it took off... you'd better look around and see the tree's not the forest....Conservatism will gain strength of candidates like Sarah and Gov Jendle...and please, could you whiners and lib's at TNR ,disguising yourselves as conservatives, please join the dem's...that's where you belong....

- Jerry Robertson

November 8, 2008 at 8:15pm

The real mystery seems to be how these "conservatives" have basically made tax payer subsidized socialism for the economic elite, a done deal, and yet there are still cries from the Right that the Democrats and Obama will bring Socialism. Let's begin by asking them to stop the water, crop, milk, corn, oil, aerospace subsidies, which all come from the working class taxes. Hell, some farmers get subsidized water, seed, and harvest insurance, all at taxpayer assistance....then we have to buy the stuff at the store!

- Calif Don

November 8, 2008 at 8:22pm

The seeds of the Republican defeat were planted long before George W. bush came to office. Read P.J. O'Rourke's brilliant piece 'We Blew It' in the Weekly Standard. Instead of being conservative, Republicans became moral busybodies and blind to the principles of limited government.

- rpallies

November 8, 2008 at 9:18pm

Interesting article and it stands to reason that the strongest force in the Republican party would be social policy religious style conservatives who liked Bush will probably also like Palin. The political force of free market conservatives have probably been diminished by the increased number of food poisonings and toy poisonings and the subprime mortgage crisis. Small government style conservatives are just dreaming and probably weakened by the public reaction to hurricane Katrina. Low tax conservatives, after almost 30 years, have no data to support their conclusion that GDP shrinks from higher taxes and that tax revenues will increase from lower taxes. So, it stands to reason that Palin would have the largest following.

- Nusholtz

November 8, 2008 at 11:28pm

So the answer for the failure of the GOP is that it was too conservative? Then the solution is to move more toward the middle? And what becomes of the conservative base of the party? And who is the right GOP leader? America is still a center-right nation, so the idea that the 2008 election signals a sea change of voters' values is off target. Unfortunately, I believe the hard-right wingers of the GOP will need to be dragged kicking and screaming toward the center, or at least be left either to settle for supporting candidates they are lukewarm about or to form a third party. I agree that the electorate is not interested in seeing hyperconservatism win the day, but I think they are united in opposing hard liberal policies. Still, the problem remains for the GOP - who to carry the standard forward? The party is unlikely to trust another moderate like McCain after this drubbing, so it appears that a Palin or Jindal is inevitable. Perhaps Gingrich has mellowed enough to shine, but it seems more likely that the GOP will be interested in trying to rejuvenate.

- Tim

November 9, 2008 at 12:00am

If continuing to champion traditional conservaive causes (smaller government, less regulation, strong national defense, etc.)is not the way for Republicans to go, what should they do? I trust you aren't thinking the the GOP should try to lure voters by promising even more generous redistributionist programs than the Democrats. Twiddle Dee and Twiddle Dum? William L. Rupp

- William L. Rupp

November 9, 2008 at 1:06am

This article is full of inaccuracies and garbage analysis. No one takes Bill Kristol seriously. Kristol is a neocon tool of the Israeli faction. Palin is nothing at all like Bush. Bush is a protege of the GOP elitists who hate Palin. The slow learners are the people who don't understand that all revenue comes from private industry. Without a thriving economy, you can't have social benefits.

- RIck LaBonte

November 9, 2008 at 1:24am

Oddly, the Republicans' response to Obama's election resembles the French Socialist Party's response to Sarkozy's election: doing more of what got them defeated in the first place.

- Steven Rendall

November 9, 2008 at 5:21am

At the core of the Conservative Establishment you describe here are, obviously, the neocons. Let's face it: These people are simply religious zealots who operate beyond the confines of mere reason. They are true believers who are on a perpetual mission to "save" Israel, using their definition of "salvation" (as opposed, say, to Olmert's recent prescription for saving Israel by actually (gasp!) making peace with the Palestinians). For these fanatics, all of American policy, foreign and domestic, must be shaped to "save" Israel. Over 75% of American Jews rejected this idiocy, which brought us the Iraq War first and threatened to destroy the world economy next with the bomb, bomb, bombing of Iran for dessert, under either Hillary as Democratic neocon "Iron [Iran] Lady" or the "war hero" McCain. Now that the neocons have destroyed the Republican Party in Congress as well as the Bush Administration, surely there are wiser heads somewhere in the rump of the party that survives, just a handful of intelligent pragmatists who see that the fanaticism of the neocons wedded to their Joan of Arc for Israel, Palin, will simply lead the Republicans further into oblivion. The Internet has made it literally impossible for the neocons to run their scam anymore. They are hourly exposed, whatever they do. There's no place to hide, and way too few morons left to bamboozle. The American public sees Palin as Tiny Fey does. Like the neocons, she's toast.

- jeanrenoir

November 9, 2008 at 7:53am

Excellent points... and very true. The ineptitude of the Bush Administration would be magnified by a Palin Administration, but luckily, barring some terrible misstep by the Obama administration, we will likely be saved from the possibility of Sarah Palin going anywhere near the White House.

- Tom

November 9, 2008 at 8:11am

Your article is on point but it seems to me that there is another, under-examined reason for Bush's, and the republicans' downfall. I refer to the president's treatment of ignorance as a virtue. The obvious example, and there are many, is the refusal to correctly pronounce "nuclear". Appealing to the working class by feigning(?) stupidity is insulting. Equating populism with know-nothingness is good for neither the country nor the party. I'm old enough to remember when Adlai Stevenson was called an "egghead" but doing so didn't require that Ike pretend to be an idiot. Republicans should pray that Bobby Jindal assume leadership and eliminate the brain cell gap.

- Vincent Williams

November 9, 2008 at 8:16am

Hmm, wow, I'm not sure where to even start with this one. Mr. Chait doesn't seem to even understand the basics of conservatism, much less identify its leaders and icons. President Bush is not, nor has he ever been, a real conservative (hence the moniker "neo-con") or a classic liberal, which are arguably one in the same. The conservative base did not support him in his run up to the 2000 RNC, but were forced to back him in his tight race against the psycho Al Gore. Every conservative I talked to rolled their eyes after he won the nomination and was convinced the party was trying to appeal to the centrists, a strategy which nearly backfired if it wasn't for all the negative attributes of Gore. The past 8 years have represented a failed experiment in "compassionate conservative" principles that were rejected by Ronald Reagan but adopted in earnest by President George H.W. Bush, costing him a second term. President George W. Bush, apparently completely unaware of his father's administration's failings and distancing by the Republican base, not only revived his strategic policies, both domestic and foreign, he actually brought back key members of his father's administration. So we get 8 more years of Bush Sr.'s failed policies, with W's only savior being 9/11 and the ensuing War. Bush has always been out of touch with conservatives, as demonstrated by his ballooning domestic budget, anchored by an exploding Department of Education (which you conveniently failed to mention). He has no true conservative advisors in his family, cabinet, or most of his extended administration. Then the RNC leadership thrust another Bushite at us this year: John McCain. Once again, McCain has NEVER been in touch with the conservative base and has built a political career stabbing conservatives in the back while flirting with the most leftists in the Democratic party. This time, conservatives weren't falling for the old tricks and simply could not conjure up enough faux excitement this season. It's 1992 all over again. Mr. Chait, you really need to look at the exit polls. Conservatives did NOT even show up this election, which is a clear indication that their fear of an Obama administration could not outweigh their disdain and exhaustion of fake conservatism in the White House. Maybe if the RNC would spend more time asking conservatives what they want from a leader and less time telling us who can win elections, we might have a real party again. In the meantime, I'm putting my support behind Romney in 2012 while crossing my fingers and hoping to God that the RNC doesn't try to run a Beauty Pageant contestant against an incumbent president. Run that one by your brain a few times. The party that produced Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower is seriously considering nominating Sarah Palin? Sounds like the script for a South Park episode.

- Bryan W

November 9, 2008 at 9:33am

It must be the 25% of Texans (and their national cohort) who think Obama is a Muslim that are the base of this pro-Palin exuberance. I pine for the days of Republicans worthy of respect.

- Common Sense

November 9, 2008 at 10:53am

Most Republicans and ALL Democrats would love to see Sarah Palin become the new face of the GOP.

- james

November 9, 2008 at 11:00am

Well written and well thought out. I myself voted for Obama because the though of President Sarah Palin scared the citizenship out of me. The republican party has lost it way and is now a party controlled by Joe the Plumber. If I wanted to that I would have penciled my plumbers name in for president. I don't want people like me running the country, but rather people who are far more educated and knowledgeable than I am in these matters. Also, where have all the republican elites gone? This is a party that's now by the stupid for the stupid.

- LP

November 9, 2008 at 3:54pm

I don't understand this anti-Palin frenzy. Time will tell.

- allante

November 9, 2008 at 5:02pm

I've never encountered a Republican who was not extraordinarily intellectually dishonest. That's not going to serve them well in analyzing how to regain power -- fortunately for the rest of us.

- Jay Ballou

November 9, 2008 at 5:48pm

“The first holds that Bush is a successful conservative president. To the extent that he's fallen short, it's due to factors beyond his control, the venality of his enemies, or his inexplicable failure to publicize his many triumphs.” ----I've said it before, "Dubya" has been a right-wing Jimmy Carter, and not just due to the pietistic rhetoric both employed according to the state of the Jesus Movement in their respective times. ----So, another rhetorical modification (that could reasonably be dubbed a "Dubya paradigm shift”): From Ronald Reagan in the ‘image and likeness’ of George W. (“Dubya”) Bush, 2001-2004, TO George W.(“Dubya”) Bush, post-2009, in the image and likeness’ of James Earl "Jimmy”) Carter, post-1981. The term most descriptive is "plagiarize," not "slow learner." The Republicans adopt a suitably-modified (Bush from Carter) rhetorical technique previously employed by the Democrats.

- p.

November 9, 2008 at 6:09pm

Jonathan, why do you hate america?

- michael

November 9, 2008 at 6:31pm

"It may be that his administration will end up winning a war” ---The tense may be wrong (at least depending upon what war is being referred to). At least two small wars were won by 2003, by the time of the 25th Anniversary of the Persian Gulf Expedition, organized in 1978 (Gonzo and Kermit stations in the North Arabian Sea) and institutionalized in 1979, when President Jimmy (“Born Again") Carter sent American naval expeditionary forces into the Persian Gulf to “keep the peace.” "Jimmy" did way more than just 'lust in his heart.’ “Dubya” has only brought some completion to a portion of the job that “Jimmy” began. ----Although, “credit where credit is due:” It was actually, begun by the British Labour governments and American governments, circa 1965-71-1977. Ignoring developments and wars in Europe, the Atlantic and Western Pacific (including “Latin America” the post-91 Balkan peninsula, the arming of Japan, and American support to British Australia in the southwest Pacific), here: The Johnson, Nixon and Ford administrations established the necessary basing reforms in the western Pacific (Japan, Guam, & Singapore, British Commonwealth), founded the new bases in the Indian Ocean (British Commonwealth), developed the Lines of Communication, and established joint military operations with British Commonwealth countries, especially Pakistan and India (the latter continued, and have been expanded upon greatly through to today). The Carter administration ordered American naval and air tactical units into northeast Africa, the North Arabian Sea, and the Persian Gulf, provided logistical and military support to the so-called mujahadeen in Afghanistan (1979-89), founded the American Advanced Bases in the Persian Gulf region (naval logistical base in Bahrain and air bases in Saudi Arabia), and established the organizational foundations (Rapid Deployment Force) for the Reagan Administration to build upon (Joint Chiefs of Staff unified command: Central Command). American-Anglo-French-Egyptian actions during the Reagan administration laid further foundations across northwest-to-northeast Africa (the old French Senegal-Foushida, Sudan-Djibouti west-east line). The Advanced Bases in the Persian Gulf region were further developed during the Reagan Administration, and then used during the G.H.W. Bush administration to break the Iraqi military and establish American naval and air supremacy over the Persian Gulf in 1991. The G.H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations furthered the advances into northeast Africa and central Asia, while maintaining steady naval aerial bombardment of northern and southern Iraq. The G.W. Bush administration oversaw the advance into Afghanistan and the conquest of Iraq: Sufficiently disarmed, softened up, and with its air forces neutralized, the administration oversaw the conquest and occupation of Iraq, and shifted the air-forces Advanced Bases from Saudi Arabia into Iraq, while expanding the naval-support Advanced Bases in the Persian Gulf states. The G.W. Bush administration oversaw the continuation of naval and air assaults in northeast Africa and, building upon initiatives from previous administrations, the foundation of the new Joint Chiefs of Staff unified command: Africa Command (All Africa, except Egypt), and development of a line of communications along the old French Senegal-Foushida-Djibouti west-east line across northern Africa, anchored on both coasts, while coordinating with Anglo-Dutch-French initiatives busy to the south of the axis. The G.W. Bush administration also oversaw the reformation of the JCS unified commands: Pacific, Europe, Central, and Southern commands and the founding of the new Northern Command (which includes all of British Canada, U.S.A., and Mexico). --There have been a bunch of “busy beavers,” regardless of whether they’ve been “happy in their work,” or not. . ., during the G.W. Bush administration. Some small wars have been won, others continued, all gains held on to, further gains made, and development of a substantial amount of global military infrastructure and organization under Joint Chiefs of Staff command (with the “Commander In Chief” being where the proverbial “buck stops,” of course) established. One can be sure that ALL infrastructure and organization developed during the G.W. Bush Administration and will be untouched during the Obama Administration, except for further development, suitable re-organization, re-formation, and further advances. Diego Garcia may be returned to Britain to be occupied by its Indian naval and air forces, with menial “labour” on the bases provided by jubulant exiles, ‘rightly returned’ . . . No doubt, advances will be made inland, east and west, in northern Africa, from the beacheads on the coasts: All for “humantarian” reasons, of course (Good thing the new unified command, Africa Command, commanded by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has the new arrangment of a staff composed of both Department of Defense and Department of State personnel, the first formal arrangment since the unified commands were established in 1947). ----“Credit where credit is due” is easy enough in the developmental details, over the long term. But the tense in “end up winning a war” depends upon what war is being referred to. The small ones? Or a larger war and one in which the small wars that have been won (and ostensibly lost) are only tactical elements (i.e. battles), or deployment of forces, in? Precisely what war are these people, and men like “Dubya” and Vice President Cheney, referring to?

-

November 9, 2008 at 7:55pm

“The economy is a particular source of mystification for the right” ----The source of the “whining” of Americans ----No. There’s no “mystification,” right or left. The whiners just don’t understand: “This is Good.” “Progress requires suffering,” after all. “Human Development” (i.e. Development of “Human Resources”) is critical to all other endeavors. ----The Obama administration can thank the ‘state of the economy’ it is receiving for a great deal, current and future. The crisis was the ultimate source of the “Thin Purple Line” shifting to give Obama-Biden the election (“godsend Sarah, now probably fated to be discarded, was useful, but she wasn’t enough by herself). The fear it caused was indispensable, sadly enough, for Obama to receive cheers in Grant Park in response to his declaration of a need for “a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice.” The ‘state of the economy’ being received will be indispensable for the policies that will be implemented during the Obama administration, especially those related to the military like expansion of the armed forces, development of Public Service, reform of agriculture around new metropolitan areas (already underway), re-industrialization of American mining and process industries (already underway), manufacturing, and modernization of the new reformed communications infrastructure (maritime, road, rail, air). ---This will facilitate the tens-of-thousands-of-men expansion of the American ground forces, called for by Obama in his presidential campaign [92,000-man expansion: Army (65,000) and marines (27,000)] and whatever expansion in personnel will be required for the new naval buildup, and air force expansions of 2007 and 2008 legislation (thank you Pelosi, Reed and "Dubya"). It may facilitate a stoppage of the post-2000 decline in the rate of re-enlistment’s of black American males for "careers" in the military that the Department of Defense is worried about due to black men serving in numbers out of proportion to the black population, 1974-2000, especially in the so-called “combat” units. Black women have replaced black men, enlisted “careers-retention" wise, but not in the “combat” units. However, this applies to all Americans. Immigration is being tightened up and propaganda and militarization of youth can only go so far. Normal people generally don’t like to stay in the military, don’t want to “take their bull-sh*t.” They don’t in large numbers when other options are available to them. People who need jobs don’t like it any better, but do it because they have to. ---This will also facilitate the foundation of a new PUBLIC SERVICE, which would probably have been impossible without the ‘state of the economy’ being received. It was attempted by the Reagan administration, and advocated by the Clinton administration. Now, thanks to the ‘state of the economy,’ it will probably be re-implemented by the Obama administration. The American State Department is going to need lots of people for its projects in the new Joint Chiefs of Staff Africa Command, and there are only so many American evangelicals who will wish to seek ‘purpose-filled’ lives in Rwanda and elsewhere, and probably few who will do so very long once there. Illegal aliens are being blocked, but there’s tremendous amounts of menial-labor infrastructure work to be done. ----The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC)of the WPA alone provided almost 3 million young Americans who had about 85 percent of what was necessary to produce “first class fighting men” (regimentalized, physically fit due to daily physical work outdoors. . . ) and thousands of army officers in the Reserve Officer Corps who never would have gained experience directing large bodies of men by the time that the limited emergency was declared in 1939. It wasn’t all tree-planting and parks building. . . Virtually an ‘act of providence.’ What kind of Human Development is planned for the needs of this age, then we’ll just have to wait and see. One thing is for sure. A major difference this time around, already alluded to by Obama during his campaign: American women, now being “liberated,” will be expected to step up and do their part. No more dumping public service off onto the men alone. ----At any rate, I don’t believe the propagandists on the right are all that “mystified.” To quote a common statement heard, regarding one aspect of the economy after another, primarily from the right wing, economists and financial services, circa 2001-04: “You don’t understand: That’s good.” ----We have a "war" to fight, and military power (personnel, mining, process, manufacturing, distribution, lines of communications. . . ) to build people. The Whining needs to be transformed to Bitching. . . To quote President-elect Obama: "Get Over It."

- p.

November 9, 2008 at 9:22pm

“Slow Learners?????” ----Reading this essay, and others in (TNR) this weekend (7-9 November), then this title must refer to TNR readers who voted for Obama-Biden (who only had about two months to pay attention during the presidential campaign, and a few days over 18 months to pay attention during the Democratic presidential-candidate nomination campaign, for over 20 months of TNR essays. . .). TNR is beginning the re-education only 3 days after the election and 43 days before Inauguration Day. Man, what a cheat. Not even a 4-day "honeymoon!" Oh well, the rigors of living during “war time” (or war-preparation time, whichever).

- p.

November 9, 2008 at 9:37pm

The thing that makes it so hard to understand for neo-conservatives is that Bush was both a poor leader, and a champion of bad policy. They need to come to terms with the fact that they are wrong about how to lead the country. And to terms with the fact that they have hatched a party for and of the ignorant, and they have only themselves to blame.

- fwslusser

November 10, 2008 at 12:05am

how does this end? (seriously, the 3rd page is missing).

- late night reader

November 10, 2008 at 12:52am

Do you want to know how lost conservatives are right now? This summer an unwed pregnant teenager took the stage at their national convention, standing next to the high school drop-out that knocked her up. And the Republicans gave them a standing ovation.

- Clonus

November 10, 2008 at 10:58am

To the first commenter: I hate to feed the trolls, but my god, there's so much to criticize about Palin, and you pick her *voice*? I'm sure the young aspiring female leaders of tomorrow will be interested to know that if they want your vote, the first thing they'll have to do -- before, say studying law or building foreign policy experience -- is to take voice classes until they can speak in a nice rich baritone. I don't know if you think you're funny, posting things like that, but consider that some smart but impressionable 14 year old girl might be reading this article, and think about what impact your comments might have on her.

- J

November 10, 2008 at 11:11am

Bush's presidency was both non-conservative and generally successful. We have been subjected to an escalating series of terrorist attacks, both here and abroad, of which 9/11 was by far the grandest and most lethal. Terrorism was indeed the major concern in the months following 9/11, and Bush's approval rating was quite high during that time. In the seven years since, we have not been hit with a single terrorist attack since. Bush has so successfully prosecuted the war on terror that people now can think about more mundane things like the economy. Bush has been a victim of his own success, and history will vindicate him as a competent president for his work protecting us from terrorists. The media has long been biased in favor of liberals, but in recent years, especially during their shameless campaigning for Obama, they have largely dropped the pretense of objectivity. For years they have been trumpeting about the terrible economy, despite record stock market performance and other indicators that the economy was strong. But with the liberal media trying to ruin Bush at any cost, harping constantly on the supposedly bad economy, consumer confidence fell, and it became a self-fulfilling prophecy. I find it amusing that liberals attempt to blame the subprime mortgage fiasco on Republicans or Bush. It was pure Democratic policy from the Carter and Clinton years that pushed lenders to make loans to people they knew had little chance of paying them back, in the name of diversity, and further pulled them toward that social engineering goal by directing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to purchase these bad loans. Bush has been a mostly successful president who has been a victim of his own success and a shameless oppositional media. He has not, though, governed as a conservative. He's a neocon, not a conservative (they're not the same). Conservatives believe in small government, especially at the federal level. Bush is clearly a big-government Republican, expanding the federal government by a margin that would make Bill Clinton envious. And Bush has shown none of the fiscal restraint that conservatives favor. While he has cut taxes, his spending has been obscene. A conservative never would have supported amnesty for illegal aliens. A conservative would have had more respect for the Fourth Amendment than Bush has shown. Conservatism was not defeated in the recent presidential election. Other than Palin, there WAS no conservative on the ballot; McCain is a centrist at best, and he ran a lackluster, uninspired campaign where he refused to fight until the last few weeks, by which time it was too late. And while it was a decisive victory for Obama, it does not approach Reagan's victory over Carter, which was the last time we saw a match between an Obama-style leftist and a conservative. As such, conservatives are right to look to conservatives like Palin as the future of the party. It may or may not be Palin herself, but clearly, real conservatives like Palin and Jindal are the future of the party. Running Democrat-lite candidates like McCain and Dole has been a losing strategy (so it comes as no surprise that Democrats want us to continue doing just that). Republicans will never be able to out-Democrat actual Democrats; when Republicans act like Republicans (the ones referred to, they win.

- Asc

November 10, 2008 at 11:27am

If Obama actually governs toward the center, I for one will breathe a sigh of relief. If he does not and overreaches like Bush did, he will lose his Congressional majority in two years and the election two years later. Everyone knows that the election would have been much closer, if not reversed, if the stock market had not melted down in October.

- r-ennis

November 10, 2008 at 12:15pm

As was so memorably said in TNR a while back: among conservative ideologues, conservatism never fails - it is only failed. It was as inevitable as the sunrise that these ideologues would not have a single reflective moment in response to their twin electoral drubbings (2006 and 2008). They aren't slow learners. They are non-learners. How frustrating it must be for them that the world continues to deviate from their theoretical model of it.

- Bruce Torff

November 10, 2008 at 12:41pm

rgrunder: "Is this non-discretionary?" Yes. Thanks for playing.

- James F. Elliott

November 10, 2008 at 12:52pm

The inclusion of sarah palin on the republican ticket and her continued consideration for future roles in national politics,as envisioned by the rnc, say's a great deal about the lack of respect the ruling members of the party have for the american public and their middle and lower socio-economic base. However,i wonder how many have noted what i am sure many americans of non white decent have probably noted about her candidacy. Which would be the highest and most public example of the form of AFFIRMATIVE ACTION practiced in this country since the abolishment of black slavery. It's scary to consider how many sarah palin's have been put in positions of power and authority because those with the authority to do so aligned themselves with her type (totally unqualified) because of her skin color (Not Race, as their is only the human race to my knowledge)and how many barack obama's (intellectually and tempermentally capable) have been turned away or consigned to the janitors office under the supervision of someone else less intellectually capable. IMAGINE ALL THAT WE, HUMANITY, HAVE LOST OVER THE YEARS. GOD HELP US.

- tgold1

November 10, 2008 at 3:17pm

McCain didn't get 51% of the popular vote - you need to check the numbers. He only got 46% of the popular vote.

- Laurie047

November 10, 2008 at 4:57pm

It is up to the Republican party to fix things they see as being wrong, and it's up to the rest of us to determine if we agree with their fix. Any way it's sliced, the fact remains that the Republicans lost a wheel this election. They don't have the luxury of time any more than the Obama does. Obama has to prove up in rapid order; he was elected with very high expectations and a very limited time to do a few essentials correctly at the very first. He will only get do-overs if his first programs show progress fast. The Republicans are looking more and more like the old Federalist Party, who gained firm command of the government for 8 years, then faded into extinction over the next 20 that followed. There are many differences between now and then, but one constant- the Federalists refused to change. The biggest difference is the Republicans no longer have 2 decades to come back as a revitalized party; all that time was spent in the years from 1980 to 2008, and the intenet has changed politics into a process that moves in days and weeks, not years. The Federalists' greatest success was at the beginning, not at the end. The Democrats can fail largely in the next 4 years and still succeed-all they need is a few critical victories. They have an expanding base of young voters, and youth is resilient. The Republicans' base consists of aging white men who have their feet stuck in concrete ideological boots. Neither party has much time to do the right stuff for each, but one has some forgiveness built in to it, and the other does not.

- Mike Stanger

November 10, 2008 at 5:19pm

Why don't they just change their name to "The Evangelical Theocratic Party" Maybe the "Pro-life Party" would be better suited.

- Sheila

November 10, 2008 at 8:21pm

Yes I agree, Palin as the republican candidate. As a lifelong Democrat, I can't imagine an easier way to give Obama 4 more years.

- Paul W.

November 11, 2008 at 1:51pm

Thanks J (#73) for your comment about the first comment in this thread. There's plenty of substance (or lack thereof) to criticize Palin about, but seeing a liberal (I assume) TNR reader criticizing her "high pitched" voice makes me despair about ever having a woman president. Women have women's voices, after all, because we aren't men. But some of us would make far better presidents (CEOs, generals, news anchors, governors, mayors, etc.) than some men. Not Palin, of course, but it's time for men and women both to get over this problem we seem to have about listening to women when they speak.

- JP Gal

November 13, 2008 at 1:31pm