News

"By almost any measure, American conservatives should be thoroughly depressed," John O'Sullivan wrote Saturday in his Globe essay Republicans, take heart

"The Republican Party they support has just lost control of the White House, the U.S. Senate, and the House of Representatives.

"If the Supreme Court follows the election returns, as it does when Democrats win, they are about to lose an institution they never really managed to control.

"And the Washington punditocracy has declared almost unanimously that they are just starting a long march through the wilderness of opposition . . . "

That's way too facile, Mr. O'Sullivan argued.

"Conservatives can relax for the moment," he wrote. "Their own long national discomfort with Bush and McCain is now over. They can look forward to happier days . . .

"The electoral statistics give them some cause for hope. Obama won 52 per cent of the popular vote to McCain's 46 per cent — well short of a landslide. McCain's 46 per cent percentage is much better than the 41 per cent achieved by the similar candidacy of Senator Dole 12 years ago.

"And this clear but modest defeat for the Grand Old Party came after a series of political failures, in the middle of a financial crisis, in the face of unprecedented media bias, against an unusually attractive and polished Democrat, when all measures of public opinion showed a growing disquiet about the nation's direction, following an erratic campaign by a Republican who was heartily disliked by his party's conservative base.

"It might have been very much worse."

Whether you agree or not, it's a provocative argument. That's why we at globeandmail.com are pleased that Mr. O'Sullivan was online earlier today to take your questions on his essay, on the outlook for conservatism and on the U.S. political scene.

Your questions and Mr. O'Sullivan's answers appear at the bottom of this page.

John O'Sullivan is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. He is also editor-at-large of National Review where he served as editor-in-chief for nine years.

He was editor of the foreign policy quarterly, the National Interest, from 2003 to 2005 and editor-in-chief of United Press International from 2000 to 2003.

From 1998 to 2000, he was an editorial consultant to Hollinger International Inc. and a leading member of the team that created The National Post. His previous posts have included special adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, associate editor of The London Times, assistant editor of The London Daily Telegraph, and editor of Policy Review.

Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.

Christine Diemert, globeandmail.com: Thanks for joining us today Mr. O'Sullivan. We've got several questions so we'll just get started.

Guy Beaudry from Winnipeg: It seems to me that what has happened in this election is quite similar to 1976 . . . a scandal-ridden unpopular Republican president replaced by a populist Democrat. Jimmy Carter ended up as one of the least competent presidents in US history and the Democrats were out of office for 12 years. How can Obama avoid a similar fate?

John O'Sullivan: Well, the answer is easy to give but difficult to fulfil: Don't make the same massive mistakes at home and abroad as Carter did.

Obama has one great advantage on his side, namely that the USSR doesn't exist any more. Russia is a much weaker power and can't pose the same kind of threat as Moscow once did. But he will have to solve the unsolved problems of Afghanistan and Iran's nuclearization.

My feeling is that Obama is a cautious but fundamentally tough strategist. He will make fewer mistakes than Carter largely because he has Carter's dreadful example to warn him. And his domestic problems he can and will blame on George Bush who may become the Herbert Hoover of the 21st Century. So Obama remains a good bet for 2012. History may not repeat itself.

Ron White from Calgary: I agree Mr. O'Sullivan it could have been a lot worse, and I expected it to be. The BIG question is who is in line for 2012. I don't think Gov. Palin is the answer. Who do you believe will carry the banner in four years?

John O'Sullivan: My guess -- which is all it can be -- is that Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Mitt Romney will be strong runners. Much will depend on how Jindal succeeds in governing Louisiana. So far he is doing well. Romney has to convince people that he is sincere in his advocacy of conservative policies because last time the strike against him was that he was "inauthentic." If he manages that, his established reputation for competence should make him a powerful contender.

The governors of South Carolina and Mississippi are also fancied runners.

Other governors may emerge as vote winners from the 2010 mid-term elections. And why give up on Sarah Palin? She has star quality, a strong intellect, great drive, and the time to strengthen her weak points in foreign affairs. She starts out as the favorite--no guarantee, so did Hillary Clinton--but it's a help.

Henry Allen from East Bank, Don River: It seems to me there is growing tension between the two main types that call themselves Republican. While both types believe in small government and low taxes, they differ on social issues. One type, commonly seen as Christian extreme right, is rigidly and strongly against issues like gay marriage, abortion and stem cell research.

The other Republican type is moderate on such issues and strongly believes that, unless the Republican Party shows flexibility on such social issues, it will fail to attract the growing number of independent and social moderate voters. How will the Republican Party find a balance point between these diverging positions?

John O'Sullivan: All winning parties are coalitions of uncomfortable partners. It is losing parties that tend to be ideologically harmonious. So the problem you rightly underline is one the GOP should be pleased to have. All the same it has to be solved.

There is no magic bullet. In essence parties seek to stress those policies where they have popular support and keep quiet about those unpopular policies to which they are committed for constituency reasons. It is a big mistake to drive supporters out because they annoy other supporters. A n yone who proposes, for instance, that social conservatives be discarded has the obligatoin to explain how he will attract the same number of voters plus one from other groups into the GOP. It can't be done.

The underlying argument of my article was that the GOP should increase and consolidate its growing control of the blue-collar vote and seek to divide the wealthier and better-educated section of the electorate along public versus private sector lines. Both are important but the first is the more important--and it implies some modest social intervention to help struggling families such as tuition tax credits. But it should not be impossible to persuade more libertarian conservatives that such policies will utlimately restrain government if they help people off dependency.

Gopal Ghattacharyya from Canada: Mr. O'Sullivan, your article is interesting and educational. Republicans chose a candidate who believed that the US military can do whatever it wishes. Bush mismanaged the foreign affairs with his unilateral actions. McCain projected his idea to follow the Iraq operation until the victory and ignored Afghanistan where the real terrorists are. Voters didn't see it that way. On the economical issues of the day, no one has any idea particularly Bush and his Republican followers. But the Republicans are not doomed forever. You will see them having a progressive and young leader who will be a good match for Obama. It is the same thing in Canada. Liberals will come back. I would like your comments please.

John O'Sullivan: Essentially I agree with you even if I might quibble with your use of the word "progressive." I don't share your view of Iraq and I think Afghanistan will be a real problem for Obama--not least because the European allies he depends on are unlikely to send the troops he wants. So Obama is going to be more unilateralist than he wishes. And that will give the GOP some openings.

It is on economic issues, however, that the next election will most likely be determined. Here Obama has both difficult problems (inherited from Bush AND Clinton) and an agenda that is uncertain. The GOP is full of people with interesting ideas on economics and social issues--notably Douthat and Salam who wrote Grand New Party.

So I would expect that if the Republicans make gains, it will be on these issues. In fact, as Bill Kristol points out today in the New York Times, they HAVE to produce solid and persuasive answers to the overriding economic and financial questions or they will simply become irrelevant for a generation.

Christine Diemert, globeandmail.com: Thanks for joining us today Mr. O'Sullivan. We're out of time, but before we close the discussion, is there anything you'd like to add?

John O'Sullivan: Yes, just one thing. Politics is a practical activity rather than an intellectual one. It is a matter of responding sensibly to changing events. These events include such things as wars, revolutions, economic crises, and changes in public opinion. For a party in opposition like the GOP, however, they mean above changes in government policy.

No one is really interested in the opposition until the government falters. Then they become important as the next possible government. SO they should use their time carefully to develop new policies that deal with real public concerns, offer an alternative to government failures, and make them look responsible and statesmanlike. If they do that, they will achieve far more than obsessing over their (often minute) internal policy differences.

So, rather than fight internal battles, the Republicans would be well-advised to concentrate on government failures and offer a popular alternative. The details of their theological rows they can leave for government.