Is anyone following the post-election dialogue over on Slate, The Conservative Crackup? A seemingly growing list of "public conservatives" look ahead to suggest ways to regroup.
More below the fold
The first thing that struck me was that a broad consensus was in fact in place among them (excepting only the singular issue of abortion), that consensus being smaller government.
BUT where they parted company was in their varying degrees of recognition that their vision of government no longer fit either with the global reality or the public mood. The first diarist, Jim Manzi, along with Douglas Kmiec, seems to have the most awareness of this situation - he never mentions limited government at all, instead proposing a vast increase in federally administered examinations, first of of K-12 education, and second of immigrants, although to be fair, he presents his proposals simply as ideas for discussion. Christine Todd Whitman remains the staunchest advocate that Republicanism needs to hew closely to a small government philosophy. The rest seem to think that the country hasn't changed very much, and this was a chance result. Tucker Carlson makes a pretty good argument that the party will only function with a demon to run against.
The second thing that struck me was their total, and I mean total, lack of interest in what the general population thinks and feels. I keep writing about the focus we Democrats have had on trying to find out the real issues that are keeping people up at night, that are affecting their daily lives. This sometimes leaves us riding roughshod over our interlocutors' stated opinions (e.g. "Your blanket opposition to immigration is not based on economic reality" - or some such), but I know we are out there trying to understand - Appalachia, Kansas, Indiana. Not this group. The idea of trying to figure out how to identify and address the most important concerns of the citizenry never comes up at all.
I'd be interested in your reactions to this ongoing series.