We have been here before. My first vote was for Gerald Ford in 1976 after the collective Republican wisdom selected the honorable, but uninspiring Ford over Ronald Reagan. By 1980, the miserable failure of 20 years of moderate to liberal policies entrenched by presidents, congress, and courts allowed Americans to vote for President Reagan. Rational monetary and regulatory policy combined with substantial tax cuts led to 20 years of remarkable economic growth. The Reagan revolution began to roll back, probably in 1986. President Bush (41) never understood conservative ideology and campaigned in 1988 as the moderate he was. "Read my lips, No new taxes" was a cool line, but, in our hearts, we knew he neither believed nor understood the principle he espoused. He was no more Ronald Reagan than Clint Eastwood. Hence his shock at the reaction politically, and economic to his moderate policies and hiked taxes. He was thrown out (with help from Perot) in 1992.  Clinton continued the moderation of the Reagan revolution. Moderate hikes of taxes were passed on the wealthy. Positive reform of trade (NAFTA) and welfare. Most of all, we benefitted from divided government in the 90's. Gridlock may be the best alternative to conservative governance.

 

The GWBush years will mark the end of the Reagan revolution. I believe this to be true no matter the victor on Tuesday. Certainly an Obama administration would place an exclamation mark on its demise. But, there is little chance of revival under a McCain presidency.  I wonder if the Reagan Revolution ended on 9/11.  Bush (41) and Clinton squandered the "Peace Dividend", while dismantling our intelligence and military capacity. A quick victory in Afghanistan led us all to believe that we might destroy the terrorist regimes sequentially, and we might have disposed of  Iran, Syria, and North Korea by now. GWB has been forced to trade everything (including his legacy) to salvage victory in Iraq. We complain about the big spending under his watch, and we should. But, deals were made throughout the last 8 years for votes that prevented the ultimate and tragic defeat of the US in Iraq. These deals cost money. Our money. We funded how many metaphorical bridges to nowhere for a few votes funding our troops. Imagine Bush vetoing the earmark laden funding bills for our troops. Democrats (and Republicans) were not about to allow Bush to have "his" war without them getting their precious programs.

 

We were told that moderates would only support a moderate Republican.  Would that be moderates like Colin Powell or William Weld? Frankly, I think that Powell and Weld would have preferred establishment Republicans like Frank Murkowski or Ted Stevens to be McCain's VP pick.  Conservatives will be in their most marginalized position, perhaps since 1964 after Tuesday. Let's hope that it doesn't take 16 years to produce the leadership necessary to restore the positive freedom agenda. We have an electorate that has now been educated to the notion that they can democratically aggrandize themselves by confiscation of income from those with more. When close to half of Americans only participate on the receiving end of the Federal Treasury, there is little hope for economic freedom.  I don't believe we have 16 years.  Do we have 2?

It is fair to say that 40% of Americans will vote for John McCain no matter how lackluster his campaign or personality. I am one of these. 45% of Americans will vote for Obama no matter how thin the resume, how radical the history, how partisan the record. In fact, this is the rub. They will vote for Obama because of his partisan record.  In fairness, some of us on the right wish that our candidate were half as partisan on our side. He (McCain) was not and is not.

 

This brings us to the inexplicable 15% of voters in the middle. I do not wish to offend them.  But suffice it to say that its difficult to comprehend the difficulty of making a choice between these candidates.  But, we always tend to view choices through our own prisms. We are told that millions of Americans long for a bi-partisan or non-partisan approach to solving American problems. In near desperate attempts, both candidates attempt to sway this fickle 15% with their commitment to the evasive "middle". 

 

Barack Obama would like you to believe that he is a hybrid concoction of JFK, Reagan, and Bill Clinton. His record is much more LBJ (Great Society), George McGovern, and Jesse Jackson.  Rank and file democrats are content with his rightward push prior to the election, because they are comfortable that he will govern in a manner consistent with his left edge record.  Conservatives, on the other hand, have no such illusions with Senator McCain. He would govern in a bi-partisan manner, to the consternation (but not surprise) of conservatives everywhere. 

 

At the end of the day, most conservatives will vote for McCain because we believe compromise with Democrats is superior to domination by socialists.  If a moderate voter ever had a candidate that fit the mold, it has to be John McCain.  Many of us on the conservative side have long believed that moderates were really democrats that thought moderate sounded more intelligent (funny thing, it does).  The 2008 election may prove it once and for all.