Notes From D. R.

Weekend Box Office: Net Effect

Spider-Man 3 remains on top.

Green Day

The Washington Post on Sen. Barack Obama's Irish heritage.

UPDATE: Even the New York Times acknowledges that Obama is not exactly a "non-partisan" figure...

Ill Communication

How much of a role did conservatism really play in Ronald Reagan's Presidential victories?

The failure of the electorate to fully embrace Reagan's solid conservative principles in the years following his 1989 departure from the White House is a source of frustration for the right. The Reagan Revolution was supposed to herald a fundamental shift in American politics, a break away from the FDR-JFK-LBJ big-government mentality of the past.

Yet it seems as though Reagan conservatism has been all but abandoned. The two Republicans elected after Reagan were nowhere near as conservative as the 40th President. Newt Gingrich rode the Reagan legacy to victory in the 1994 Congressional elections, but by 2006, House and Senate Republicans were indistinguishable from the Democrats in terms of their love of big government. In 2004, the country came within three million votes of electing a Massachusetts senator who was the absolute antithesis of Reagan.

So what happened to Reagan conservatism? Could it be that the American people did not necessarily elect Reagan because of his conservatism?

A case could be made that Reagan won both times not because of his conservative values, but because he was the only serious candidate on the ballot. By 1980, the American people were absolutely sick of President Carter, disgusted with his moribund economy, his soft-as-a-grape foreign policy and his overall incompetence. Carter's 1976 election was, by 1980, considered to be one of the great wrong turns in American political history, and the voters couldn't wait to replace him with a real leader.

By 1984, Reagan was so successful that no Democrat opponent could seriously challenge him. Walter Mondale became the number-one contender, but no one in his or her right mind really believed he could knock Reagan out. Reagan's re-election was the greatest foregone conclusion in the world; he gave Mondale the same forty-nine-state whoopin' Nixon gave McGovern in November 1972.

Let's face it: Reagan essentially ran unopposed in 1980 and 1984. For so many Americans,  “The Great Communicator” was not just the best candidate, but the only candidate.

Sadly, Reagan's victories were not necessarily victories for conservatism. Cultural liberalism flourished under his tenure: MTV, violence- and sex-filled movies, popular music scornful of traditional values, etc. The left solidified its hold on the mainstream press and American academia under Reagan's watch; while he successfully restrained political liberalism during the 1980s, he could not prevent the left from gaining ground in the culture.

This is not to take away from Reagan's accomplishments; after all, Reagan isn't the only President to have won with little, if any, real competition (Bill Clinton essentially ran unopposed in 1992 and 1996 as well). It's only to note that Reagan's wins did not necessarily reflect a fundamental change in American culture; if the country had in fact shifted to the right, Clinton would have never won under any circumstances.

Over the last thirty-five years, there have only been four truly competitive American Presidential elections: 1976, 1988, 2000, and 2004. Of course, three of those elections were won by members of the "quasi-conservative" Bush family. Thus, one has to wonder: if the Democrats provide strong competition in 2008, should the GOP try to find another Reagan...or another Bush?

Quit Acting Like A Baby

GOP Presidential contender Rudy Giuliani reasserts his belief that abortion should remain legal. More from the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Human Events and RedState.com.

Executive Decision

Could Colin Powell have won the 1996 Presidential election?

A dozen years ago, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was, much like Fred Thompson today, perceived to be the only person who could save the GOP from a loss in an upcoming election. The Republican Presidential field was tremendously uninspiring--Bob Dole, God help us, seemed to be the inevitable GOP standard-bearer--and Powell was viewed by certain Republicans and many independents as the man who could pose the most formidable challenge to Bill Clinton.

At the time, I didn't have much use for Powell. I thought it was ridiculous that he was being promoted as a potential Republican contender when he held so many left-wing positions on abortion, gun control and racial preferences. It seemed as though "moderate" Republicans and the mainstream press were the ones who really supported Powell, with the idea being that Powell, as the GOP contender, could wrest power away from conservatives such as Newt Gingrich. (I also felt that the media were attempting to push the notion that Powell was a "proper" black Republican, as opposed to the allegedly villainous Clarence Thomas.)

Powell announced in November 1995 that he would not run for President, a decision that disappointed his supporters and guaranteed a second term for Clinton. If he had run, could he have prevented Clinton from winning re-election?

I think Powell could have actually pulled it off--assuming, of course, that he would have received the GOP nomination instead of Dole. While he would not have received much conservative support in a general election, Powell would have drawn enough independents and defecting Democrats to secure a Presidential victory.

Powell would have been able to appeal to those desirous of something beyond politics as usual: to quote Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, he would have been able to get folks who had checked out to check back in. He would have also drawn tremendous Democrat support; like John McCain in 2000, he would have been embraced by those seeking to remove the influence of conservatism in the Republican Party.

Would the Republican base have supported Powell's nomination? The natural inclination is to say no, because of Powell's social liberalism. However, an argument could be made that, if Powell were a candidate in 1996, the party would have been forced to make the same choice it may have to make today regarding Rudy Guiliani: whether to support a candidate who holds unpleasant social views but who stands a good chance of winning the general election.

It's not hard to envision a scenario wherein the GOP base, faced with the horror of a potential second Clinton term, would have decided to back Powell instead of a conservative nominee less palatable to the general electorate. Granted, there'd be concerns about who Powell would have placed on the Supreme Court, how strongly he would have supported the Republicans in the House and Senate, etc. However, those considerations would have likely taken a backseat to the need to return the White House to GOP control.

Powell would have beaten Clinton, perhaps decisively. Would he have been a great President, or even a good one? We'll never know. One thing's for sure: after all the controversy over his involvement in the Iraq War, he'll never have the opportunity to contend for the Presidency again.

IN HIS PRIME

British Prime Minister Tony Blair announces his resignation. More from the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Booker Rising, Michelle Malkin, Human Events, Glenn Reynolds and Jules Crittenden.

So Outrageous

A new low for political correctness at a Massachusetts university.

Mortal Combat

GOP moderates vs. President Bush. More from the Washington Post and Weekly Standard.

No Chance In Hell

Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam (and, let's face it, Hillary Rodham Clinton) on Barack Obama's Presidential hopes.

Guess Who's Coming To Baghdad

Vice President Cheney visits Iraq.

Eternal Vigilance

Six men are arrested on charges of plotting a terrorist attack at Fort Dix in New Jersey. More from the Washington Post, New York Times, Booker Rising, Michelle Malkin, Power Line and Jules Crittenden.

UPDATE: More from Michelle Malkin.

Get It While It's Hot

The book Congressional Democrats don't want you to read is released today.

Spirit In The Sky

Do George W. Bush's critics really hate him because of his Christianity?

Ever since Bush declared that Jesus was the philosopher who had the most influence upon his life, his faith has been the subject of endless controversy and dispute. To his liberal critics, Bush is little more than a fundamentalist huckster, a slick con artist who shrewdly used religion to cultivate the support of the red states. According to progressives, Bush's real belief system is comprised of warmongering, irresponsible capitalism, antiblack bias, and homophobia.

I've always felt this image of Bush was completely fictional. What has always impressed me about Bush is that his faith comes across as sincere; I've never understood those who couldn't discern the difference between Bush and a just-in-it-for-the-money sweaty televangelist.

Many on the right feel that Bush's left-wing critics are secularists who completely abhor any mention of faith in the public square. To conservatives, the folks who hate Bush are the same folks who encouraged the Supreme Court to yank prayer out of the public schools, produced movies depicting evangelicals as Southern hicks, and viewed born-again Christians as the spiritual siblings of Islamic extremists.

However, it can be argued that the majority of folks who have attacked Bush over the years are not members of the "secular left," but of the "religious left." These people also loathed Ronald Reagan's public expressions of faith, because they regarded Reagan as a worshipper of Adam Smith as opposed to Jesus. These critics can be viewed as religiously intolerant, in the sense that they only view liberal politics as being in accord with Christian principles.

Thus, Bush is not hated for his Christianity per se, but for his belief that conservative politics and Christianity are not incompatible. To those who regard the politics of Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi as being true expressions of Christianity, Bush will naturally come across as an obnoxious figure. Bush's critics were never bothered by the religiosity of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, because both men were perceived to be implementing their faith through their liberal politics. Bush, on the other hand, is viewed by these critics as worshipping something other than Christ.

When Bush leaves office, it's quite likely that the "religious left" will be more aggressive in its attacks upon his Presidential record than the "secular left." Christian liberals will call Bush a political devil--because they'll never view conservative Christianity as being on the level.

UPDATE: A liberal Christian group calls for "progressive" immigration reform. More from the New York Times.

The White House

The Washington Post asks: can Barack Obama really become American's first black President? (This article unintentionally places Obama's supporters in the worst possible light, as it depicts those supporters as being motivated by either conscious or unconscious white guilt.)

UPDATE: Somehow, I doubt that there's a huge groundswell of former Bush supporters backing Obama...

Captain Of Her Heart

Will the "gender gap" damage the Republican Party's chances for victory in 2008?

For nearly thirty years, the mainstream press has promoted the notion that Republicans are less appealing to American women than Democrats. While this notion failed to gain any real traction in the 1980s (women backed Ronald Reagan in the 1980 and 1984 Presidential elections, and George H. W. Bush in the 1988 contest), the "gender gap" theory gained more credibility in the 1990s: women voters were said to be solely responsible for Bill Clinton's 1996 re-election. 

George W. Bush managed to avoid being hurt by the "gender gap": although Al Gore received the majority of the women's vote in 2000, and John Kerry received a slight majority of the women's vote in 2004, Bush's strong appeal to male voters allowed him to win both elections. However, in 2008, the "gender gap" could cause the GOP to lose once again, if the party selects a candidate who either doesn't draw significant numbers of women (as Reagan and Bush 41 managed to do) or lacks Bush 43's ability to attract a large enough percentage of the male vote to offset the Democrat candidate's appeal to women voters.

If one hasn't noticed by now, the Republican Party is not exactly in a position to take anything for granted as the 2008 election approaches. While Republican voters should be concerned about a candidate's fidelity to conservative principles, they must also be aware of a candidate's appeal to the general electorate.

Republicans are asking for trouble if they assume that female unease with potential Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton will forestall the possibility of the GOP losing as a result of the "gender gap." While plenty of women were angry with Clinton for sticking by her philandering husband in the late 1990s, that anger may have abated over the years; if that anger has been replaced by antiwar/anti-GOP rage, then the Republicans could be, as the old Jethro Tull song put it, skating away on the thin ice of a new day.

One can certainly understand why the desire among Republicans to find another Reagan is so strong: Reagan was such a charismatic, compelling candidate that one didn’t have to be concerned about his ability to draw female voters. Let's hope the GOP can find a candidate who has that Reagan-esque appeal to both genders. If the party can't locate such a contender in '08, it won't be "morning in America" but night in November.

Freedom Fries

Jewish World Review and John Fund on France's new conservative leader.