Lone Hope Of The Left

by Christopher G. Adamo

Ever since Election Day, conservative pundits have had great fun at the expense of Democrats. The astounding success of Republicans, occurring as it did in the mid-term elections, has been correctly viewed by those on the “right” as a vindication of their ideology. But although a celebratory response is warranted, it might be a bit premature to scoff at the manner in which Democrats have reacted to their unprecedented losses.

On the surface, it appears that the Democrats are engaged in a politically suicidal swerve to the hard left in the hopes of somehow magically revitalizing their connection to an America that, ever since 9-11, has shifted noticeably to the right. The selection by House Democrats of Representative Nancy Pelosi, an ultra-liberal from San Francisco, to be Minority leader, stands as their most profound statement of unabashed liberalism. But it is hardly an isolated incident among the Democratic leadership, which has taken every opportunity since the day after the elections to trumpet their commitment to ‘60's era ideology. And if such is truly the overall Democratic strategy, conservatism will only have more to celebrate in the future.

However, in consideration of past Democratic tactical successes, the present situation had better be evaluated from a standpoint of more insidious but effective efforts. Indeed Democrats have a track record of political ploys that have consistently worked, as long as Republicans unwittingly cooperated. Unfortunately, Republicans also have a track record of doing just that.

According to the shrillest Democratic spokesmen of the past few weeks, it is the “blurring” of distinctions between parties that caused their losses on November 5. In reality, nothing could be farther from the truth. That so many of them are making such a claim, which they must know to be untrue, ought to raise a warning flag. It was the contrast between the parties, both in 2002 and in 1994 that highlighted the inherent liberalism among Democrats, thus ensuring their defeat. Unfortunately, Republicans have all too often assumed that the softening and blurring of differences between the liberal and conservative approaches to government would work to their advantage.

Since the elections, a vastly contradictory story has also emerged from liberal pundits and political strategists who claim that the 2002 elections were all about the emergence of “centrism” as the dominant political philosophy. Yet others still contend that the survival of the Democrat Party depends upon its assertion of undiluted liberalism. Though completely irreconcilable on the surface, these two schools of thought bear one thread of commonality. They both presume the foundational precepts of conservatism to be out on a political limb. It is altogether likely that neither of these Democratic clarion calls are intended for the American people at all, but rather as a means of convincing the “me too” wing of the Republican Party to orchestrate its own demise through the sort of compromise which was its undoing in 1995 and 1996.

On the heels of their phenomenal ‘94 victories, Republicans began backtracking, intimidated by the intensity of media criticism. Rather than pressing boldly forward with the agenda by which they had inspired grassroots America to support them, they felt compelled to water down their efforts. Instead of making necessary cuts in wasteful government spending, they began to declare their intentions to outspend Democrats on Medicare, assuring the public that they weren't going to scale back or eliminate “valuable” government entities such as the Department of Education, school lunch programs, or the National Endowment for the Arts. And the list goes on.

If, in the midst of defiant professions of commitment to liberalism by Democrats, Republicans once again feel compelled to “meet in the middle”, they will not only infuriate their base, which was enthusiastic about this off-year election unlike any other since 1994, they will also negate any reason for undecided voters to take them seriously. Worse yet, if liberals can believably claim to be “centrist” while shifting to the left, Republican efforts at “moderation” will require compromises far more profound than those in the past.

For grassroots conservatives, it is undeniably a time of rejoicing. But it is not too soon to make clear to Republican officials that they had better remain committed to the conservative ideology that defined them as significantly different from Democrats, and thus brought them victory on November 5.

Growing up during the turbulent decades of the ‘60's and ‘70's, Christopher  Adamo saw, to his dismay, the nation's moral foundations being destroyed  before his very eyes. But even then he was a staunch Conservative at heart,  and rejected outright the tenets of America's counterculture revolution.

 After a hitch in the Air Force, where he specialized in airborne  electro- optical systems, he pursued a career in the field of aerospace,  working for major defense contractors in California, Florida, and Colorado. But his career plans abruptly changed during the industry-wide downsizing that followed the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster.

Presently he is working in the field of industrial instrumentation in the state of Wyoming. Concurrently, he has become involved in that state's political process, attending state GOP conventions as a delegate, and serving as a member of the Wyoming Republican Central Committee. He has also aided in the candidacies of local legislators and state senators, as well as a U.S. Senator and Congresswoman.

From 1993 to 1996, he edited and wrote for “The Wyoming Christian”, the state newsletter for Christian Coalition of Wyoming. During that period, he developed an acute awareness of the harm being done to Conservatism by liberal activists within the Republican Party as well as the Democrats. This remains a favorite theme of his articles, which now appear as a regular feature on GOPUSA.