A lot has been made about whether John McCain is a "true" Conservative, and most of the Republican debates so far have been largely about who was most devoted to Ronald Reagan. And yet, all of this jockeying for "true Conservative credentials" has not produced any real excitement from the base, who largely is trying to decide whether to compromise their beliefs by voting for McCain or to compromise their power by sitting out the election. A new commentary by Cal Thomas suggests the real problem is a movement which has stopped looking ahead, and is obsessed with the past in the form of Reagan.
Reagan engaged in an arms-for-hostages deal with Iran. As president, Reagan seldom went to church, unlike his evangelical base. If conservatives knew in advance these things about Reagan, would they have voted for him in such numbers?I tend to think that Thomas is right, and much of the problem in the air now is that Conservatives have allowed GWB and the War in Iraq to eat up all of their creative energies. Where are the people who lead the Contact With America which promised bold new ideas? Where are the people who championed school choice, true reform for Medicare, and voluntary term limits for Congressmen? It is not enough to say you are "optimistic" and stand for "change." You have to present ideas which show a forward-looking vision. Obama, at least, can always fall back on the fact that his very election is forward-looking, by apparently realizing Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream.
Contemporary conservatism has mostly been about saying "no" to the liberal agenda. Suppose conservatives instead begin to circumvent liberals by applying better ideas to achieve ends liberals and conservatives claim to seek?
