A big topic of discussion is: What can the conservative movement do to recover? and What can the Republican party do to recover? I am asked these questions a lot. And I am invited to appear on panels devoted to the general subject.

I decline, because I would be a lousy panelist in such a case. You know how Al Gore et al. call people who aren’t with them on global warming “deniers”? Well, I am a bit of a “denier” in this area: I don’t think conservatism and Republicanism are in crisis. (Of course, some people use the word “crisis” to describe any little problem.)

People might say I have my head in the sand, or I’m whistling through the graveyard. And that may well be true. But I sort of doubt it.

Much of American politics is cyclical; and there is such a thing as good luck and bad luck; and there is such a thing as having the wind at your back or the wind in your face.

Consider the 2008 presidential election. It was almost a perfect storm for Republicans. John McCain was a very, very poor candidate. He could barely make a case for himself. Now, I voted for him with gusto, and wish he had been elected. I’d like to go back to that same polling place and vote for him again. I wish he were in the Oval Office right now. But he had a very hard time making a case for himself, particularly in the three presidential debates.

His running mate, Sarah Palin, was perfectly and disgustingly vilified. The Left, broadly defined, has a lot to answer for in this regard.

McCain-Palin had 100 percent negative media coverage (or 99.9–depends on how precise you wish to be). Barack Obama had 100 percent positive coverage. The rooting was open and appalling.

And he was a very, very good candidate–a good campaigner, a good speaker, a good debater, a good pol.

Plus, the incumbent Republican president had historically low approval ratings. And the nation was weary of a fairly long and difficult war. And, in September, the financial system collapsed.

AND AND AND: McCain-Palin got 46 percent of the vote. Think of that.

In preparation for a piece on Sen. Harry Reid, I read some news accounts of his selection as majority leader–this was in November 2004, after Tom Daschle was defeated in South Dakota. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat, said,

When you look at a presidential election where we lost in every age group except one, I think it time to do some reassessment–and that’s one reason why I’m glad Harry is there. I believe very strongly that the voice of the moderates of our caucus ought to have some sway. I have noticed in the past that all the gravitas has slid to the left. All one has to do is look at the map to know that you can’t win a presidential election that way. If we keep going on this way, we’ll be a minority party.

Four years later, the Democratic party looks, to some, forever invincible. What nonsense. (And you perhaps forgot that Reid was once regarded as moderate. It wasn’t so long ago, you know!)

I remember a time when the Democratic party was finished–not four years ago, but about 20. They were never going to win again. They had gone the way of the Labour party in Britain (!). (More about that later.) We used to say, “The Democratic party has shrunk to three constituencies: blacks, public-sector unionists, and Hollywood.” It was going to be Republican victories as far as the eye could see.

Once, FDR cobbled together a great coalition: It included northern blacks and southern whites who would have them lynched. Now the Democratic party could barely meet in a phone booth.

And how about the British Labour party? They were really, really finished. Thatcher had finished them off. They were a laughingstock–Michael Foot and all those old bolshies. What a joke. Then Blair came along, and after some years people said, “Will the Tories ever win again?”

I have not lived all that long, but I have already seen parties rise and fall–and rise again. Yes, sometimes you need a bold new direction, or at least bold new rhetoric, which Blair provided. But sometimes you need: to wait, for better weather.

Did Bill Clinton represent a stark new direction for the Democratic party? No, not really: He just knew how to talk, and how to campaign, and he had mighty favorable circumstances in 1992.

You know what was big and bold about Clinton in 1992? He said that maybe, maybe, maybe it wasn’t such a great idea to celebrate the murder of policemen. (This was his “Sister Souljah moment.”) Boy, that was radical.

Did Barack Obama represent a bold new direction? Yes, back to McGovern.

The Republican party will get better circumstances–this will not be hard, given how poor their circumstances were in 2008. They will also get better candidates. And Democrats will get less skillful candidates. And the wind will blow as it will.

Now, am I saying that there should be no thinking and no reviewing and no improving? Don’t be silly. You should do those things all the time. And the Republican party faces at least one daunting challenge: the growth of Hispanic America.

What I’m saying mainly is: Take a breath or two before you hit the panic button or prophesy doom. The patient may not be at death’s door; he may be simply resting. Furthermore, remember history: Treat yourself to some perspective (and I preach this to myself as much as to others, believe me).

Okay, one more point: You know how we say–absolutely correctly–that people use the occasion of the financial crisis to enact policy they always wanted to enact anyway? The crisis is just an excuse, a fig-leaf? So it is with Republican and conservative reform. There are people who have always wanted to jettison the social conservatives–and they think the recent GOP defeats give them an opening.

Just beware motive, is all I’m saying.

And I treasure something I heard Kate O’Beirne say, maybe ten years ago: The abortion issue is not an albatross around Republican necks; it keeps untold people within the coalition (while keeping fewer out). The economic stuff? A lot of people are natural redistributionists–redistributionists at heart, you know.

Anyway: Just kind of explaining why I’d make a very, very poor panelist for a discussion of the need for conservative transformation. I bet you agree! (Hey, isn’t “conservative transformation” kind of a funny phrase?)

‐This may shock you, but Hillary Clinton is starting to bother me as secretary of state. According to this news account, she said, “When the United States is absent, people believe that we are not interested, and that can create a vacuum that destructive forces can fill. We don’t want to be absent. We want to be present.”

This was during her Asia tour. As you know, the world often complains that the United States is too much present. That has been a persistent and cranky complaint of the last eight years. Alternatively, they complain that the U.S. is absent.

They simply complain. Anti-Americanism is like anti-Semitism (as a jillion people have pointed out): The Jew is a capitalist. No, he’s a communist. He’s whatever you need him to be–a handy, all-purpose bogey. The Americans are isolationists who stay ignorantly on their farms. No, they’re overwhelming our cafés, museums, and streets.

Etc., etc.

Let me highlight something else from the article about Hillary:

Clinton took a shot at the Bush administration when explaining why she and Obama had appointed a special envoy to deal with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict immediately after taking office.
“We felt like the United States had not been as active in trying to bring the parties together to resolve the conflict,” she said. “We’re going to work very hard to resolve what has been such a painful and difficult conflict for so many years.”

Bush and Rice peace-processed their buns off! What are you talking about, lady? And what did such peace-processing avail?

Anyway, I regret to announce that my patience with Secretary Clinton is exhausted. (You recognize that line, don’t you? National Review, December 1963–after Johnson had been president a few weeks.)

‐An Associated Press article out of Jerusalem begins, “Far-right politician Avigdor Lieberman . . .” Okay. But do you ever see press accounts describe someone as far left? (Old, old, old conservative point, I know–but still good.)

‐Got a kick out of something in an article about Senator Burris, the beleaguered Obama successor:

Some Illinoisans said Burris should be allowed to serve until the next election [rather than booted now].
“If you don’t like him, throw him out at the election,” said 77-year-old retiree John Fussell, as he waited for a burger at the Korner Kafe in the St. Louis suburb of Cahokia. “I think everyone should just shut the hell up and let it run. How much damage can he do in less than two years?”

An American voice, singing.

‐For many years, I heard people such as David Pryce-Jones and John O’Sullivan say, “The EU has characteristics of the old Soviet Union.” And I’d think, “Gee: That seems a little strong.” Over the years–after plenty of reading, and plenty of observing–I became a believer. Did you see this article about Václav Klaus? The headline: “Czech president compares EU to Soviet Union.”

These days, I simply yawn–as if you had told me that the Detroit Lions would have another losing season.

‐Speaking of Pryce-Jones: I’ve been reading his blog, and I was struck by what he had to say about the manipulation of British law (and other law) by jihadists. And that reminded me of a term I had never heard before: I saw it in David Kilcullen’s new book The Accidental Guerrilla (which I have reviewed for The New Criterion, and which I will discuss further in this here space)–“lawfare.” This is a kind of warfare, part of the jihad’s abundant arsenal.

You know who knows as much about lawfare as anyone? National Review’s own Andy McCarthy. He has tangled with jihadists in court, and he is tangling with them elsewhere now. We are lucky to have him; the jihad is unlucky.

‐Want to talk to you about an Israeli matter–about Gaza, the 2005 withdrawal from. Back when that was being debated, I was in a very, very peculiar position: I agreed with all of Sharansky’s arguments about why withdrawal was bad; but I sided nevertheless with Sharon, who wanted to withdraw, and made it happen.

Screwy–untenable–I know.

Have you heard the latest about Shimon Peres? He has now said that it was a mistake–that the withdrawal was a mistake. And Peres has been leader of the doves–leader of the peace-processers, leader of the concession-makers, leader of the withdrawers–for years. And if he says it was a mistake–how much longer can the rest of us hold out?

(For an article on Peres and Gaza, go here.)

(I’m afraid that, in recounting my Gaza thoughts in 2005, I sounded like Bill Clinton, explaining his position on the Gulf War. Remember that?)

‐For Impromptus via RSS, go here.

#JAYBOOK#

‐In the above-advertised book, there is a piece called “Little Suppressors: Dealing with the bookstore clerk who hates you.” I grew up with bookstore clerks who, if you were to buy something a little right-of-center or otherwise incorrect, would give you grief. Why is that piece called “Little Suppressors”? I once worked at a bookstore called The Little Professor. The manager there–a really nice guy, by the way–wouldn’t put out conservative magazines or gun magazines. So my friend Eddie renamed the store “The Little Suppressor.”

Anyway, in yesterday’s Impromptus, I had an item on kind of an Obama shrine built at my local Barnes & Noble, here in NYC. And a reader contributed this:

Stopped by my local B&N (Grosse Pointe, Mich.) on the way home from work one Friday to pick up the Wall Street Journal, as I enjoy the weekend section. I plunked down the B&N gift card my employees had given me as a thank-you for some reason. The face of the card bore the image of Henry David Thoreau. The clerk, a man sporting a BHO button, picks it up, scans the WSJ, looks at me, and says, “I wonder if a brilliant man like Thoreau would have read the Wall Street Journal. Probably not.”

Well, the Left could have few objections to the news pages!

Anyway, that’s what they’re like, those bookstore clerks. Haven’t changed a bit since I was coming of age in good old Ann Arbor town. I shudder at the mere thought of them.

‐

Jay,
I used to run the gang unit for the LAPD in the Hollywood Division. My 18 officers insulted one another so often that the common retort was condensed to “GFY.” This became the unit’s motto. I have T-shirts and jackets that proudly display “GFY” along with our logo. I had to tell a deputy chief that the initials meant “Good for you.”

And good for you, dear readers! Have a great weekend.