View Comments |  Print This Post |

When we lose this year it will be largely because we failed to articulate in a compelling way the great enterprise for which we labor and struggle.

With one day to go, barring a miracle, the United States is about to elect the most left-wing government since 1964 — perhaps in its history.

 But even worse, there are signs that Obama's team will combine with his big government tendencies, an authoritarian mindset that in recent days has become disturbing even for those of us who were once willing to concede that the Senator was a talented, decent man.

Consider that when three newspapers endorsed Senator McCain, the Obama campaign barred the reporters from those papers from the campaign plane. Can you imagine if Nixon had done such a thing — it would have been a lead story on every network. It hardly caused a ripple last week.

Obama also made a statement about creating a civilian security force. One doesn't want to be reactionary, but what, precisely, does this mean? It is at the least alarming, coming from a man whose associates are fans of Hugo Chavez. Obama should be asked to explain this — now, before we vote on Tuesday.

We also have Democrats threatening to revive the fairness doctrine, which is their way of saying they want to quiet conservative voices on talk radio who have been so effective at balancing the left-wing media slant in most of our major media.

And we had state resources aimed at investigating Joe "the plumber," whose great offense at the time was to legitimately question Obama on his tax policy. Within days, Democrats running the state agencies were launching investigations and the media, acting as a wing of the Democratic party, was camping outside Joe's home and smearing his reputation.

It is quite remarkable to behold the Democratic silence on these activities and proposals; the silence is deafening. All those protesters who love dissent apparently love it only when it is aimed at the Republicans.

Nevertheless, it is increasingly probable that Obama will be the next president, and it is critical that conservatives revisit their core principles and prepare themselves for the hard struggle against those policies that will weaken our free enterprise system, create an expanding class of dependant citizens or suppress open dissent.

In 1964, Bill Buckley found himself — as the intellectual leader of the conservative movement — in hard political straits. He knew that Barry Goldwater was doomed to lose, two months before the election. It was highly unlikely, he knew, that in the wake of the Kennedy assassination Americans would want a third president in barely a year.

But he did not despair about the great principles that bound conservatives together in common cause. It is heartening at this time to revisit the words of this great American and conservative icon:

I wish to speak on two subjects. The first has to do with the role of the conservative movement at this juncture in American history, when, to no one's surprise more than our own, we labor under the visitation of a freedom-minded candidate for the president of the United States. I say labor, because the nomination of Barry Goldwater, when we permit ourselves to peek over the euphoria, reminds us chillingly of the great work that has remained undone. A great rainfall has deluged a thirsty earth, but before we had time to properly prepare the ground.

I speak of course of the impending defeat of Barry Goldwater.

Buckley went on to make his case for why Goldwater was likely to lose, but also why the cause for which they fought was not lost. Buckley's goal was nothing less than counterrevolution against the great statist enterprise represented by Democratic and liberal Republican politics. If that was his concern in 1964, it is all the more critical in 2008 when the federal government under a President Obama will threaten to swallow this nation whole. It is no great thing, he wrote, to defeat liberal Republicans when "the enemy is made of sterner stuff."

He continued: "So are we, and we must prove it by showing not a moment's dismay on November 4 in the likely event that the walls have stood firm against our assault. On that day we must emerge smiling, confident in the knowledge that we have weakened those walls, that they will never again stand so firmly against us. On that day we must be prepared to inform Lyndon Johnson that we too will continue."

Conservatives today face a tough road. We have lost the great conservative icons of our past: Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, Buckley himself. But they left us a rich legacy, an inheritance that we must spend thoughtfully in the months ahead, for our task is all the greater and more daunting without them.

First, we must find new Buckleys and Reagans. Perhaps in Sarah Palin the conservatives have found a voice of great authenticity who can help carry our flag, but she has work to do. I am a fan, but she must spend the next four years not merely campaigning, but consolidating her knowledge of conservative principles, history and political thought. Let her not be caught short again by the media liberal watchdogs — she must emerge as more than a media sensation, but as a reflective stateswoman able to master the great issues that will face the United States in coming years.

Others wait in the wings. I am not sure what the future holds for Mitt Romney, but I am fairly certain that he might well be the nominee but for his Morman faith. If we can roll back the great prejudices against blacks, women, and Catholics, surely we can overcome this one as well. Four years of left government in the White House might convince those harboring such doubts that their doubts were misplaced.

What are the principles of conservatism around which we must cohere? Freedom and liberty, individual responsibility, faith in transcendent values, compassion rooted in individual concern not statist paternalism, free enterprise properly exercised that shores up our great venture in liberty, a strong defense on behalf of our freedoms and those around the world who live in the shadow of tyranny, autocracy and crippling socialist poverty.

We join Buckley, as he wrote in Up from Liberalism, in defiantly standing against those who would wield great power at the expense of the individual. His clarion call fifty years ago remains compelling today.

I will not cede more power to the state. I will not willingly cede more power to anyone, not to the state, not to General Motors, not to the CIO. I will hoard my power like a miser, resisting every effort to drain it away from me. I will then use my power, as I see fit. I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth.

Friends, when we lose this year — if we lose — it will be largely because we failed to articulate in a compelling way the great enterprise for which we labor and struggle. It is not an enterprise on behalf of the mighty, the rich, the famous, or the collective. It is an enterprise on behalf of each individual striving to find dignity, self-respect and self-worth. To paraphrase one writer: striving as thoughtful individuals, we will reach our goals together; forced to strive for it collectively, we will perish alone.

No federal or local bureaucracy, however well intended, has ever successfully instilled values. Values are rooted in families, neighborhoods, places of worship, schools — ultimately, they are rooted in thoughtful, responsible citizens. Such citizens can respond to a national appeal or calling, and can even appreciate the role that government must sometimes play, but they also understand Ronald Reagan's warning: a government strong enough to give you everything, is strong enough to take it away.

And so we must embrace again the eternal wisdom of Saint Paul, whose words are relevant even for non-Christians when understood as a proclaimation for human freedom:

Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.