There's A Lot At Stake In 2008

Both parties have a great deal at stake in the 2008 election, and face a bit of a cross-roads. Work with me here...

Republican
Jason Lewis guest hosted on the Rush Limbaugh show last week, and illustrated what's at stake in the Republican party. He starts by taking a call about being a conservative Christian in politics (in regard to Huckabee), then works around to the main point - the war inside the Republican party.

Take a listen...

Once again, Lewis hits the nail on the head. Just because these guys are Republican doesn't make them conservative, and it's not possible to wedge these non-conservative records into a true conservative mold. The base isn't buying it, nor should they.

If you look at the last few decades of the party, you see some major shifts. As I understand it, Reps of decades ago seemed content to be invited to parties and be treated with surface respect by the big Democrat majority. In 1980, Ronald Reagan swept into the White House on the strength of conservative principles that resonated with Americans. He broke the Republican mold and re-established it in his image, writing the template for future conservative success. In 1994, Republicans (led by Newt Gingrich) took control of both houses of Congress for the first time in decades based on these same principles.

But, just a few years later, they had already fallen off the reservation, led by George W. Bush as a 'compassionate conservative'. During Bush's presidency (and the Republican-controlled Congress), we got an unprecedented expansion of government, and although some great tax cuts were pushed through, spending went through the roof. Many Reps support amnesty, global warming legislation, and abortion/stem cell research. These are not conservative issues, and are a clear signal that the party in general has drifted left.

The question Republicans must answer, as Lewis states, is what form the party will take in 2008 and beyond. Will it get back to the true conservatism that Reagan relied on for incredible success, or will it continue down the road of compromise, becoming a 'Democrat light' party? Remember the Whig party? No one else does, either, because they lost relevancy and the ability to hold their constituency together. If the Republican party continues down the road of compromise, it could follow the Whig party - as Lewis says, if people want bigger government, they'll vote for the real thing every time, and that means the Democrats. The conservative base is stuck in limbo right now because they lack leadership. There are a number of younger Congressmen who adhere to Reagan conservatism, but no one with the prominence needed to rally the base. When the leader steps up, the base will be there in a heartbeat...but the leader has to show up first. That's the key for the Republican party in 2008: is that leader out there?


Democrat
Bruce Walker writes at American Thinker of the cross-roads faced by today's Democrat party. He calls it a 'moral challenge', and for good reason. According to Walker, the difference between Clinton and Obama is not one of ideology or policy (since they're almost identical), but rather one of ethics and character.

He talks of statesmen of the past, how they may have had far-left policy ideas, but they were generally considered good, honest men by all:

The Democratic Party used to regularly churn out candidates and leaders who were all wrong on the issues, but who retained a high degree of personal integrity. Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Eugene McCarthy, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis -- among others -- were men like Mike Mansfield: good men who were on the wrong side of the political divide.

At a fundamental level, the survival of the republic depends upon both political parties have basically honorable people leading the parties. Republicans got rid of Richard Nixon because he was a crook. The leadership of the Republican Party told Nixon that he had to go. He went. What the Democrats have had since 1993 is a marriage of convenience to a couple worse than Richard Nixon. In order to win power and hold power, Democrats have been unwilling or unable to free themselves from the clutches of two cynical and amoral operatives.

If this was to achieve certain lofty goals, that would be one thing. But it manifestly is not to accomplish anything specific. Bill Clinton triangulated policies not to get anything done, but to remain popular and powerful. Hillary, who has done nothing at all in the Senate, seems to be just the same as Bill. Neither really want to accomplish anything, reform about wrongs or solve any problems. All that matters to Bill or Hillary is power.

He makes the case about how Obama, ideologically speaking, gives Democrats everything they want, and is even farther to the left than Clinton. As such, he questions why Clinton is even in the race. His conclusion is that "a scary proportion of Democrats care nothing about ideology and everything about power. Moreover, these Democrats care less about winning elections as they do about returning their party to a position of almost absolute power. There is no way this can be done traveling the high road."

His concern -- and one I share in a big way -- is that this attitude could put a pathological liar back in office in the form of a second Clinton presidency. Just ask Scooter Libby how unchecked power can be abused, which is what Clinton would wield. Walker breaks down the moral challenge this way:

If Democrats wish to nominate a very liberal, apparently honest, quite electable black man, then they have in Obama all that they could hope for in a candidate. If the Democrats do not care about political philosophy and do not care about being trusted by the rest of America, then they can nominate Hillary Clinton.

Similar to the Republican party, the Democrats also face a defining moment in their party. The Clintons are a known quantity - another Clinton presidency will be riddled with scandal (the campaign already is), strong-arm tactics to silence opposition, and lie after lie after lie. If the Democrats want that kind of a party leader, they can easily have it. However, if they choose to return to honesty and statesmanship alongside their agenda, they can have that, too. It's up to them, and the results will speak volumes about the ethical and moral condition of the party in general.

It's a big, big election, one that figures to have far-reaching effects, not only on the whole country (and world), but also in defining each party. Don't miss out, it's history in the making!

There's my two cents.