Prof. Bainbridge stares into the abyss...

And comes away unburdened perhaps, but still cloudy-minded

What might have been

It's time for us conservatives to face facts. George W. Bush has pissed away the conservative moment by pursuing a war of choice via policies that border on the criminally incompetent. We control the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and (more-or-less) the judiciary for one of the few times in my nearly 5 decades, but what have we really accomplished? Is government smaller? Have we hacked away at the nanny state? Are the unborn any more protected? Have we really set the stage for a durable conservative majority?

Meanwhile, Bush continues to insult our intelligence with tripe like this:

"Our troops know that they're fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere to protect their fellow Americans from a savage enemy," Bush said in his weekly radio address. {Ed: Full text here}

"They know that if we do not confront these evil men abroad, we will have to face them one day in our own cities and streets, and they know that the safety and security of every American is at stake in this war," he said.

I guess that's all he has left....

What really annoys me, however, are the domestic implications of all this. The conservative agenda has advanced hardly at all since the Iraq War began. Worse yet, the growing unpopularity of the war threatens to undo all the electoral gains we conservatives have achieved in this decade. Stalwarts like me are not going to vote for Birkenstock wearers no matter how bad things get in Iraq, but what about the proverbial soccer moms? Gerrymandering probably will save the House for us at least through the 2010 redistricting, but what about the Senate and the White House?

In sum, I am not a happy camper. I'm very afraid that 100 years from now historians will look back at W's term and ask "what might have been?"

Not a happy camper? Odd: me either, and my shoe tree's full of Bass, Nocona, Converse and such. No Birkenstocks. You should visit the link, he gives a concise and quite frank assessment of where he feels things have gone terribly wrong.

But, you know, it's odd. Bainbridge is a true believer in the value of markets--as am I, within certain limits of decency and stewardship. And in that "stalwart voter" statement, he undoes his frustration with his own party, and lets them off the hook. In essence,

Sure, my husband drinks, and beats me and the kids. But how I could leave? Kids need a father. And he loves us, he really does.

No, the market only works when you haven't given yourself over fecklessly to monopoly. That a business professor of his stripe comes so late to this truth is surprising, but business is not immune to ideological irrationalism--and how!--eh? Maybe this just illustrates how difficult it is to realize the final stages of disaffection and disconnection from what has, heretofore, seemed an essential part of who we are.

The professor is one of an emerging group at the top springing up to mirror a more populous but less influential group at the bottom of the right hand side of the political spectrum: rationalists; awakening true conservatives. Welcome back, all. And I hope they converge ever more quickly. They have much to commiserate about, and much rebuilding to do in practical and psychological terms. The market of ideas needs them. But only if they consent to competition, not unthinking economically irrational brand loyalty.