Joanie, nicely written article. Still most of what you describe is already well underway - the NA Union, the illegals, the socialist medicine creeping in. So while this may accelerate it, the vector today is the same as yesterday.
My take away is a little different. Leaders matter. Perhaps socialists can implement their agenda with out great leaders, but Conservatives can not.
The only real move towards conservativism, that is back towards the Republic and away from the United Socialist States of America and Mexico is, took place during Reagan.
Now we chose Bush. We thought he was electable. (He was, barely). We thought "He'll be better than Clinton/Gore/Kerry". He has been, perhaps. But if we are going to be moved to the left I might rather have the Dems in charge.
Bush isn't a great leader. A good man, yes, I think so. He has done some good things, and he has sone some things that I don't approve of.
But what he has never done is really understand, inspire, and drive the case for Conservatism. Instead, from early on he's wanted to play the 'sugar daddy' role. Free drugs for seniors, amnesty for illegals, billions for liberal educrats via "no child left behind".
By compromising (to win) behind a weak leader we assured that the frog (us) would continue to be boiled (moved towards Socialism).
At the same time we left ourselves open to our positions being mis-stated. Conservatism itself has taken a huge lump, and it's because the people who should be the formost exponents of it in fact care little for the principles that are central too it. Or, are at least unable to explain them clearly to anyone.
The Dems will always have a compelling story: "We will take care of you. Here, have some goodies, on us."
I heard a talk radio caller today say "I've never been a Conservative. I don't believe in trickle down". The left has determined the field of debate. The left has defined the terms and characatured us as "tax breaks for the rich". This has succeeded in great part because we don't have leaders who can counter these statements effectively. It has also succeeded because, like all successful lies, there is enough truth in it to sting.
Therefore I'm going to focus on the leader. Being and electable R isn't enough. (It may be a minimum requirement, but it can't be the only one.)
Are we going to sleepwalk through another election and let the media and inertia make McCain our Presidential candidate? Because he seems to again lack the fire that would make our movement wake up.
We need a leader more like Goldwater, who is willing to call a spade a spade, and present the real conservatism to many who don't know what it is.
Leaders matter. Weak leaders will eventually lose, whether is it Dole, Kerry, Bush the elder, or now George.
Leaders matter and we need to start now to find the very best we have (even if they are not millionaires or gifted with Robert Redford looks).
We need to find someone who can, once again, articluate a choice, not an echo - to use Goldwaters famous phrase.
Without that person we might win a tactical skirmish here and there, but we shall surely lose the war.
You also made a very powerful and far-reaching observation that I had never considered: Leaders matter. Perhaps socialists can implement their agenda without great leaders, but Conservatives can not.
So very true, and so tragically overlooked. Between now and 2008 we conservatives will be searching high and low for someone who can take on the menacing, and ever-emboldened, forces that threaten us from within, and outside of, our borders. Considering the perilous state of our republic, nothing less than another Reagan will do (and yet who of that caliber is out there?)
On the other hand, the socialist steamroller has the momentum, and all it will take to retain it is a handful of useful idiots in leadership positions to grease the gears now and then.
Sincere thanks for your contribution on this thread. You have provided me, and others, much food for thought.