You know the political world
is in turmoil when the best conservative journalist on the scene, Robert
Novak, blows two big predictions in a row. Novak said Mitt Romney would
win the Iowa Caucuses (Romney lost by nine points to Mike Huckabee)
and that Barack Obama would beat Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire in
a “blow-out” (Hillary won by a couple points). All of this goes
to show that both political parties are going through a revolution of
“change” that the columnists and talking heads do not yet grasp.  

From my vantage point, however,
it looks like both major political parties are moving to the left.  

Human Events, the national
conservative weekly that used to be a favorite of Ronald Reagan, is
trying to be a factor. It followed Fred Thompson’s strong performance
in Thursday night’s South Carolina debate by endorsing the former
Tennessee senator. Thompson had attacked Huckabee during the debate
as too liberal. But Huckabee got more self-described “conservative”
votes than any other Republican candidate in Iowa.   

Is the Human Events endorsement
too little too late for Thompson? Romney’s endorsement by National
Review (and his money) didn’t help him win either Iowa or New Hampshire.
As we contended in a recent column, it looks like the conservative media
are losing their influence. 

In fact, as demonstrated by
the rise of Huckabee and especially John McCain in the Republican race,
conservatives in and out of the media are looking rather desperate.
About a year ago, the conservative group Citizens United released a
report, “He’s No Ronald Reagan: Why Conservatives Should Not Vote
for John McCain.” But McCain got the votes of 30 percent of self-described
conservatives in New Hampshire.  

My column about Rush Limbaugh
losing influence, by virtue of the fact that Huckabee overcame Limbaugh’s
strident attacks and won Iowa anyway, generated some interesting comments.
Here’s one from an engineer in Cincinnati that drew my serious attention
and I think has a lot of wisdom in it: 

“I think that rather than
draw the conclusion that Rush Limbaugh is losing his influence you have
to question the current state of conservative politics in America. The
ideas of conservatives are rarely promoted by anyone running or holding
office. I heard a speech of Fred Thompson this week and he was speaking
like a conservative but these speeches are few and far between these
days. We lost out big when George Bush announced he was a compassionate
conservative and then started writing bills with Ted Kennedy. There
is not greater evidence than the spending spree him and the Republican
Congress had for this first six years of this century. 

“The ideas of small government,
low taxes, low regulation, and minimal intrusion in the daily lives
of people are losing ground. The people in Iowa are not rejecting Rush
Limbaugh because he dares to suggest that Mike Huckabee is not Ronald
Reagan. They are rejecting the concepts of Ronald Reagan himself.

“We have diluted the Republican
concepts of being conservative with each election. Look at Arnold Schwarzenegger
and Rudy Giuliani. These are your electable Republicans these days.
And when we settle for them we commit ourselves to a worse one with
the next election.

“I contend that Mr. Reagan
himself would have a tough time getting elected these days. Likewise,
John F. Kennedy would have the same problem in the Democrat party. He
actually summed up the conservative central theme when he said ‘And
so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask
what you can do for your country.’ A guy talking like that is not
going to pass the muster in the face of government giveaway, buy the
votes Democrats, these days. 

“Conservatism cannot win
without people understanding the concept. And the word is not getting
out there. If it weren’t for the Internet this fight would already
be lost.

“My point really is though
that there are getting to be fewer and fewer real conservatives all
the time. I am afraid that this media onslaught of misinformation is
winning. The constant drumbeat of the necessity of government’s changing
role I think is having an effect. More and more people are buying into
the new and expanded role of government. I think that most Americans
think that if an individual doesn’t want to get out of bed in the
morning, go to work and support their children, that the government
should step in and take over.

“Socialism has always been
easy to sell because it has that ‘something for nothing’ promise.
Of course, as real conservatives know, it has always failed to deliver
and always will. Freedom, entrepreneurship, and motivation are destroyed
and the promises can’t be delivered on.” 

Since the Republican candidates
profess to be Reagan conservatives, perhaps we ought to remind them
of what the former president said: “Freedom is never more than one
generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children
in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on
for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling
our children and our children’s children what it was once like in
the United States where men were free.”  

How many times have you heard
the current crop of candidates talk about freedom? Go to their websites
and see how many times they mention the word. Are they talking about
freedom? Or are they talking about what government can do?  

It may be that there are fewer
conservatives these days. But it could also be that the definition of
the term has changed.  

Perhaps my friend in Cincinnati
is correct. Perhaps Reagan couldn’t campaign and win as a Reagan Republican
these days.

The conservative Heritage Foundation
is running an ad campaign that asks, “What would Reagan do?” It’s
a good question. It ought to be asked of the Republican candidates at
the next debate.

Share This

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

About the author