The author's analysis is superficial and trite; he is positing a return to political message that simply is not directly relevant to the current post-Cold War situation.
The direct comparisons to Regan are facile. Ronald Regan's historical legacy keeps rising and his moral and principle-centered leadership how now put him in the pantheon of the 4 greatest American Presidents. Regan's era was, however, dominated by the Politics of the Cold War, and opposition to Communist domination is what held the Conservative Coalition together.
George W. Bush faced a much more perplexing foreign policy challenge in confronting state sponsored terrorism. It suddenly fashionable among Conservatives to parrot the Liberal critique of the War on Terror. this is self-destructive self-indulgence. I believe that this President did the politically risky but correct thing in bringing the war directly to the one of the principal state sponsors of terror (see:
http://www.husseinandterror.com ). A lot of people seem to be having convenient amnesia on this point now. history will vindicate George W. Bush's decision to prosecute the Iraq War.
Congress has been adrift since Newt Gingrich was forced by a bogus ethics complaint brought by the Treason Party. The degree to which Congressional Republicans abandoned the President on his domestic agenda is both shocking and immensely depressing. Had the Congressional Republicans simple gotten wholeheartedly behind a SINGLE one of the President's reform issues they would still be int he Majority today.
During this time of introspection it is imperative that the real causes of Tuesday's debacle be sorted out from the more simplistic explanations.
Conservatives will need to come to terms with a changed political environment and not engage in exercises in nostalgia. Reviving Newt's idea of the Conservative Opportunity Society might be a good start. That concept embodied a positive vision that directly addressed the most important post Cold War political hot button issues.
The most recent Congress was completely devoid of ideas, vision and guts. A new vision must address the issues that are current: economic insecurity and the emerging problems in Asia.
This isn't about nostalgia.
>>>>The author's analysis is superficial and trite....
Its only trite to those people who find conservatism boring and unoriginal. In politics, getting back to the basics can signal a breath of fresh air. So, I disagree with you. Rotterman's analysis was a brief summation that hit on all cyclinders. It was a political message and a governing message ---- Conservatism works. Again, Rotterman's objective is to see the GOP move back towards the conservatism of Ronald Reagan.
Most cosnervatives would disagree with you. Conservatives see nothing facile about a return to a policy agenda that gives more respect to the Constitution and individual freedom.
>>>>George W. Bush faced a much more perplexing foreign policy challenge in confronting state sponsored terrorism.
If it was that perplexing, maybe Bush should have not gone into Iraq when he did. Perhaps he should have considered other options. Come on, we don't need excuses at this point. I supported the invasion of Iraq, but its time tactical changes were seriously considered. And the Baker-Hamilton commission will soon give Bush their analysis and suggestions for America's future in Iraq.
>>>>and opposition to Communist domination is what held the Conservative Coalition together.
BULLoney. The Reagan agenda was about a strong national defense, tax reform, limiting the welfare state and support for pro-life issues. And that's exactly what most conservatives want a return to. Not to mention, winning the WOT and enforcement only immigration reform.