MAY 30, 2008 --

We sure are, as I read George Packer’s article, “The Fall of Conservatism, in the May 26 The New Yorker magazine. For Packer, the GOP is “brain-dead’ and lacks the ideas and vigor to win in November. Key strength for the Democrats is an expansion of the “post-industrial” McGovernites, with “working-class Americans” still a toss-up.

As LPR sees it, however, Packer’s piece picks on a peck of pusillanimous
politicians (better known as Republicans). Packer points out that W. ran as “’compassionate conservative’” and continues, “but it never amounted to a policy program.”

It seemed here that the term could only help liberals in smearing conservatives as “mean-spirited,” you know – people lacking in compassion.

Packer focuses on Republicans – going back to (who else)” Richard Nixon as the source of polarization in our politics,, suggesting that Democrats stopped seeing Republicans as Herbert Hoover miniatures in the 1970’s.

Excuse me? If Democrats have stopped the polarizing rhetoric against Republican as callous power-manipulators, why did George W. Bush find it helpful to use the term “compassionate conservative.?” If Democrats stopped resorting to polarizing tactics, why did the term “mean-spirited” seem, in Democratic throats to be part of the name of the GOP? (Packer writes that Nixon seized the presidency in 1968—as if it were a coup?)

But I have criticized Republicans, including Newt Gingrich, since 1995, when they lacked the energy – or was it simply lack of fight? – to respond to Democratic demagoguery. It always seemed to me that the Democrats lost, in 1994 because the American people had been put off by the sense that the Democrats, at least in the House, felt entitled to the majority.

Meanwhile, Republicans were still fearful lest they be denounced as architects for new Hoovervilles, and held onto “Contract With America” for dear life instead of responding to the demagoguery from the left, demagoguery that is yet to cease but, is never termed polarizing by liberals.

The New York Times, shortly after the November 8, 1994 GOP majority gains in House and Senate, quoted a Tennessean, John Greeter as saying that he thinks that the Republicans are now the party of the people. If only it had turned out that way.

I think the observation is more accurate that the Republicans continue to be in dread that they be seen as opposing The People, and so are incapable of responding to claims, as stated by Packer, that they are uninterested in government, just in winning elections and are not in favor of limited government but are actually anti-government.

Packer claims, “Throughout the decades since Nixon, conservatism has retained the essentially negative character of an insurgent movement.” Perhaps he means that conservatism has never broadened into a working political majority. Machiavelli instructs that insurgents will never get wide backing until the people are certain they will hold power.

If Republicans are incapable of standing up for themselves against demagogic attack, how can we be confident they will stand up for us. Packer offers the liberal view, expressed by columnist David Brooks (now a proto-liberal?) that the people “’want government to do things.’” Would the people prefer government action to effective action? LPR is wondering if the problem of lack of energy is less with Republicans and more with persons thought to be media conservatives?

Bronx Gas … May 27th.

New Jersey Exxon … May 27th.

Torrington, CT Mobil … May 23rd.

It is not the brain, perhaps, that is the cause of the GOP predicament, today, but the condition, I think, of the Republican / Conservative spine — accompanied by a willingness to follow the Democratic lead of, on getting elected, becoming enamored of power, privilege and perks. This would suggest another 40 years of a House Democratic majority after next November.

It doesn’t have to be that way. Republicans could accept the counsel of Madison in Federalist 57 that the way to govern is to remain close to the people; the way to gain election (gain election not “seize” office) is by the solemn commitment to do so.