Rising From the Ashes

“Victory has a hundred fathers, but defeat is an orphan.”
--Thomas Campbell, The Battle of the Baltic; as quoted by President Kennedy

In every war, after every hard-fought battle there is that period of mourning, blame, and recrimination, or as the Japanese so eloquently put it, “biting one’s navel.” In contemporary terms, we call it “the morning after.” For American conservatives, the early hours of November 5th found them, for the first time in 16 years, in a position to be virtually shut out of the political process. So flushed with victory was Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, that she was already promising to begin implementing the President-Elect’s policies as soon as congress returned in mid-November, two full months before his inauguration.

On the Republican side, the public recriminations were already starting. Sarah Palin became the target of John McCain’s handlers, blaming her for the defeat. For the Alaska Governor, it had been an uphill fight from day one. The systematic trashing of her and her family undertaken by the media and the blogosphere was both brutal and utterly unprecedented. Some may roll their eyes at that statement, but let’s face facts. If Geraldine Ferraro, the Democrat candidate for Vice President in 1984, had been subjected to this level of scorn and ridicule at the hands of the Fourth Estate, feminists would have had the heads of every guilty political pundit impaled on the point of a spear and paraded down 5th Avenue.

The fact is, this defeat was in the cards from the beginning. At the start of the primaries, the Republicans had three leading candidates. Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and John McCain. Among the base, McCain was the least favorite. He was older than the other two, and had a history of giving in to Democrats. Romney and Thompson were candidates with solid conservative chops. Democrats and the media fawned over McCain, even suggesting that he run as a Democrat. That should have been a huge red flag right there. The media coverage was massively one-sided, as outlets such as the Washington Post are now sheepishly admitting. The interrogation of McCain and Palin was brutal and intended more towards tripping up the candidates rather than the elicitation of information that might actually have been useful by voters. In contrast, Obama was never asked the tough questions. So soft-handed was the media's treatment that in the days following the election, after a campaign that lasted the better part of two years, Tom Brokaw and Charlie Rose mused that they really did not know Obama's position on key foreign policy issues.

As the primaries got underway, stories from the front lines began to seep into the reportage. Throughout those early states, County Clerks and Voter Registrars were commenting how surprised they were at the large number of Democrats who were crossing over and voting Republican. It now appears that those voters may have manipulated the primary process, giving a boost to a candidate they felt could be defeated in November. In the context of modern political processes, primaries are no longer stand-alone events. The perception of momentum early defines the results of the later votes. By the time the primary season was half over, it was clear that McCain would be the eventual nominee.

John McCain, politics aside, is a hero in every sense of the word. He courageously served the United States in an unpopular war, and survived a brutal imprisonment at the hands of the North Vietnamese, whose attempts to use him for propaganda purposes failed. Upon his return to the U.S., he embarked on a political career that would eventually lead him to the U.S. Senate where he has served with distinction. He has made his reputation as a maverick, working against the Republican Party on more than one occasion. He is admirable in so many ways, but while he is a Republican, he is not a conservative. Because of that, his choice of a running mate, many felt, would have to pull the ticket back to the right, to keep the loyalty of the base.

Sarah Palin is a breath of fresh air. She is strong, outspoken, and utterly without fear. The principles that guide her are the same ones that defined the path of Reagan conservatism. Most of all, she was someone the base could relate to; a woman successful in politics, yet still committed to her family. She was married to a man’s man, a real Alaskan sourdough, who nevertheless, was so secure with himself that he never felt his masculinity was at risk with his woman in the spotlight. While a neophyte on the national stage, Sarah Palin still brought to the ticket a solid record of executive government experience, both as a mayor of a small town (and thus wired into the values and concerns of small town America) and the Governor of a state that stands on the physical frontiers, surrounded by foreign countries, and the driver of a state economy that regularly reports budget surpluses in the billions of dollars. She successfully balanced a fierce defense of the wilderness with the nation’s need for oil, and made sure that the proceeds of that oil found its way into the pockets of Alaskans. Yes, the state government actually pays people to live in Alaska.

The effect that Sarah Palin had on crowds could only be described as electric. Wherever she went, thousands gathered and cheered with a lusty enthusiasm that had been notably absent from the McCain events. I suppose it was inevitable that envy would have reared its divisive head among the members of McCain’s staff. After all, the running mate should never shine brighter than lead candidate.

And yet despite her obvious strengths, she was rejected by the media and the feminists. The media swarmed her home town of Wasila, Alaska and turned the place upside down looking for that smoking gun they could use to destroy her. The so-called "Trooper-gate" turned out to be nothing at all, as she was cleared of any wrongdoing on the day before the election, an event that was completely ignored by the media.

While the treatment by a biased media establishment might be understood, even expected, the abandonment of the National Organization for Women was both hypocritical and despicable. NOW is supposedly driven by the desire for women to have equal access to opportunities in business, culture, and government. Yet, conservative women who likewise pursue those same goals, are thrown to the wolves. Based on the resumes of women honored by the left, it seems that a woman needs to have grown up with an abusive father, survived an abusive marriage, had an abortion, and raised multiple children on welfare; a victim’s persona. But that is the mantra of the left. They cannot tolerate success in a person, unless their history matches the accepted curricula vitae. In the eyes of NOW, despite her successes, she didn’t possess the “qualifications” demanded by the feminists:

She had never been a victim.

Despite her impressive resume, she was criticized as someone without the necessary experience to be a national leader. And yet, those criticisms could have (and should have) been factually applied to both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

On this, the allegorical morning after, pundits on the left are hailing the end of an era; the death of Reagan conservatism.

Actually, no.

What the campaign of 2008 has taught Republicans is this:

Moderates can’t win.

John McCain ran as a Republican moderate, and had his head handed to him. Barack Obama, on the other hand, can only be truthfully identified as the most leftist candidate for president since Eugene V. Debs, and won a stunning victory. He was, of course, helped by the media allowing his party to escape responsibility for their complicit involvement in the economy’s collapse, ignoring the fact that the beginning of this downturn can be dated almost to the day in 2007 that the Democrats took over the majority in both houses of congress.

For conservatives, a fork in the road has been reached. Over the last eight years, we have been urged by our party leadership to move to the center; to be the party of compromise and accommodation; to shy away from the principles of conservatism that made Ronald Reagan a true uniter. Now, in the grey light of dawn, amid the still-smoking rubble of a blown campaign, that strategy stands revealed for what it was, the path to defeat.

This loss does not spell the death of conservatism. If anything, it stands as the point of rebirth. For the Republican Party to regain primacy, the grass roots members have to drag the party leadership, kicking and screaming if necessary, back to the right. Our approach might be guided thus:

1. The media has not been, is not now, nor will ever be our friends. We must end the attempts to placate those who, while hiding under the veil of the so-called “4th Estate,” have systematically twisted, or outright ignored our attempts to put our unfiltered message in front of the people. WE must take the responsibility to spread the word in the arena where it really counts; across the back fence, in the break room, and on the factory floor.

In every war is one battle that determines the outcome of that war. In this ideological conflagration, the upcoming fight over the Fairness Doctrine will be our Gettysburg; our Waterloo; our Guadalcanal. The leading candidate for the FCC Commissioner post essentially guarantees the imposition of the Fairness Doctrine.
On that field, the conservative movement will either live or die. Conservative talk radio has been our national voice, in the face of active suppression by the media, a tactic to which they now freely admit. If we lose, and that voice is taken from us, then we will have to carry the message, using the tools available to us; the Internet, phone, fax, and word-of-mouth.

2. The Democrats have been successful at spreading lies. We can fight those lies with the truth, but each one of us must learn those facts and the evidence supporting them and be ready to cite them at the drop of a hat. Those facts must be delivered in a calm and deliberate way, refusing to be drawn into the liberal trap of emotionalism. By the same token, when we hear of something outrageous that we might be inclined to believe, instead of running down the street, screaming at the top of our collective lungs, we must calmly and deliberately ascertain the facts, lest we end up embarrassed by a deliberately-planted piece of disinformation or an isolated act by one of the unhinged among us. We will depend on resources like Newsbusters.org to provide us with solid facts we can use, but we must also undertake our own research. In turn we must always be ready to utilize the most devastating counter-stroke in political debate: “Cite your evidence;” demanding clear proof of every position liberals take, and being ready to expose such “proof” with the actual truth.

3. No longer must our legislators engage in the losing tactic of “reaching across the aisle.” History has shown that we lose every time. Republicans surrender key initiatives, while the Democrats give up nothing of value. In recent history, the biggest difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats have always acted as if they were in power, even when they did not possess that power. Republicans must now stand like the veritable stone wall and refuse to surrender. As the Democrats have kept conservative judges from an up-or-down vote, so must our representatives now stand in the way of liberal nominees. Let the media call us obstructionist; in fact, wear that badge proudly. Wars are won not by soldiers who flee the field, but by those who stand their ground.

4. We must clear our legislatures of the RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) in the primaries and replace them with those who will hold the conservative line. Some of us, who are qualified and who possess the moral courage necessary, will need to step up and run, and the rest of us must support them. All of us need to step out of our collective comfort zones, if we have any hope of regaining control.

5. But most importantly, we, the grass roots members, must deliver a clear and uncompromising message to the leadership of the Republican Party, a message that defines both our independence and our unity; one that stands representative of the only path we can ever walk; a promise to ourselves and our future:

No. More. Moderates.

We have lost a big battle. But the war goes on. Let us take the field in strength and courage, and we can never be defeated. As Ferdinand Foch said, “Victory is a thing of the will.”