From the leftist's perspective, "racism," "sexism," and "imperialism" are the greatest of this world's evils, and the United States of America is the greatest purveyor of these evils.

As readers of this column well know, I have long since stopped identifying myself as a Republican.  In fact, it is with no short supply of reservation that I identify myself as a "conservative," so dislocated do I consider today's "conservative movement" to be from the intellectual tradition in whose name it promotes itself.

Yet whatever my misgivings may be, the fact of the matter is that I continue to vote for the Republican Party as the lesser of two evils.  The twentieth century English philosopher Michael Oakeshott once stated as his sole reason for supporting the Tories over their Whig rivals his belief that while the former have a propensity for "damage," it isn't as severe as that possessed by the latter. To his lack of enthusiasm for the partisan politics of his time I readily relate my own disenchantment with the partisan politics of mine: it is not for the sake of eradicating damage, but of minimizing it, that I endorse Republicans over Democrats.

So, it is with an eye toward decelerating the pace at which this administration is recklessly marching our country toward ruin that I offer to the GOP my idea for its candidate's campaign in the presidential race of 2012. I suggest that the next Republican nominee adopt for his or her campaign the theme of restoring the vision, not of Ronald Reagan, but of America's Founding Fathers. 

Admittedly, and without exception, the presidential nominees of both parties have always peppered their speeches with references to the Founders. There is nothing at all unusual or distinctive about this. But it is not in terms of the vague rhetorical generalities and platitudes to which presidential candidates characteristically give lip service that I urge the Republican candidate of 2012 to frame his or her campaign. Quite the contrary, I submit that our candidate should expend his or her resources (in time and energy) enlisting specific Founders in the service of underwriting his or her own vision.

It is not for me, and certainly not at this time and in this column, to make predictions concerning how the details of such a campaign could flesh themselves out.  Yet I can state what I suspect are the benefits to be gathered from such a constant, vigilant focus on the Founders.

First, in this Age of Obama, it would seem that to a significantly greater extent than at any other time in recent memory, a substantial (and rapidly growing) number of Americans have an acute sense that before their very eyes and against their heartfelt wishes changes are being zealously imposed upon their beloved country that guarantee its transformation into something at once unrecognizable and (by their lights, at any rate) most undesirable.  

Barack Obama has been in office for only six months, yet already the scope of his plans and the staggering speed at which he has attempted to implement them have enlivened in legions of people who call the United States home the instinct of self-preservation. This is a profoundly conservative instinct, for the self-preservation that I reference is oriented toward conserving a recognizable and customary form of life that is perceived, rightly, in this case, to be under attack.  Yet insofar as this way of life is also perceived as being continuous with and inherited from a centuries-old American tradition, concern with an embattled present will imperceptibly shade into and be virtually indistinguishable from a concern with revitalizing and nourishing a collective consciousness of a prized past. 

Thus, a call to revisit the Founders will be found most inviting by all those who long to prevent their and their children's inheritance from being squandered away by those who view it only in the most crass of utilitarian terms, as a mere means toward the end of its replacement by a social order to which it has always been the antithesis.

Second, an invitation — a demand — to seriously discuss the Founders will place the Democrats generally and Obama in particular on the defensive.  For decades now, many on the Left and everyone associated with the radical left has spared no opportunity to remind the American public of the great historical transgressions of which the United States is guilty: "racism," "sexism," "classism," and "imperialism."  In contrast, by continually accentuating their wisdom, fortitude, piety, and courage by issuing illustrations from the Founders' lives, the GOP nominee conscripts his or her opponents into a conversation that, I assure you, they will anticipate with any feeling other than glee, for attending to the Founders in a complimentary vein is an enterprise with which leftists tend not to be in the least familiar.  In fact, it is one that they find inconceivable.

This last point brings us to the next. Not only will a discussion of the Founders place Obama and his ilk on the defensive, it will ultimately reveal their true mindset, for both their assertions and omissions couldn't but disclose the hostilities they discreetly harbor against those "dead white men" who left us a legacy of maltreatment of "persons of color."

It is crucial for Americans to know that from the leftist's perspective — and there isn't a doubt in my mind that this is Obama's perspective — "racism," "sexism," and "imperialism" are the greatest of this world's evils, and the United States of America is the greatest purveyor of these evils.  A dialogue between the presidential candidates on the Founders would inescapably elicit from Obama a disproportionately large number of references to slavery and the cruelty to which American Indians were subjected.  He (and his allies) may also very well make mention of the inequality that existed between men and women while America was being birthed.

From comments of this kind, however, the Republican candidate must not shy away.  Furthermore, he or she must respond immediately, and even tenaciously.  This, I know, is a most uncharacteristic maneuver for a Republican candidate to make. But there are rich possibilities for victory that just a little logic can potentially unlock.  Our candidate should corner the President into explaining how he could have any feelings other than contempt and disgust for anyone responsible for having perpetuated what, according to the worldview held by our President, are the worst of atrocities?

Our candidate could bring to the nation's attention the hypercritical, indeed "anti-American" attitude that presides over the liberal arts and humanities departments of colleges and universities our country over by pointing out that, first, this is where the President received his education and, secondly, there is hardly a member of any of these faculties who hasn't endorsed him. 

I strongly suspect that a campaign theme of the sort that I recommend has never been more timely. I also believe that, given a Republican candidate with the right combination of charisma, passion, and courage, it would prove to be a success.

Yet unfortunately, I don't think that it will come to pass, for it will force the Republicans to abandon their paralyzing fear of such thorny issues as race and, with it, their unrealistic, convenient image of an idyllic America past. Rather, what we should expect is for the GOP to concern itself with the enterprise of pandering to historically "marginalized groups."

And what this means is that we should expect the GOP to render itself even more of a laughing stock than it has already become.