Recently, Senator George Allen's office has released excerpts from Candidate Webb's military fiction novels. The excerpts are shocking--there are lewd and perverse descriptions of pedophilia, incest, and explicit sexual acts.

One might think that in the conservative-leaning Virginia, this revelation would sink the political ship of Webb. Yet, in the past week, Webb has had his strongest showing in a variety of polls.

Either the public is largely ignorant of his past writings, or the writing is on the wall: Even Virginia has lost its social concience. If this latter option is true, then those who worry about the moral culture of America should be developing ulcers.

Virginia, with its variety of demographics--from the diverse DC/metropolitan suburbs to its rural West and South--could be considered a fairly good litmus test of our nation's social conscience.

Perhaps we could develop this rule: If Virginia, then America writ large.

Let us hope that Webb doesn't get elected.

Continuing a series of five posts before Election Day that will evaluate how Republicans can reattach with the American public, I today write of two opposing political postures: proactivism and reactionism.

The conservative ideology that largely undegirds Republican politics has largely been characterized as a reaction to progress and advancement. Abiding in William F. Buckley's historic line: "Standing athwart history, yelling 'Stop!'", the modern conservative Republican movement has been known for rejecting the postmodern morality that has accompanied our "advanced" age. Thus, the Republican posture could best be summarized as reactionary.

Whereas there are many valuable presuppositions and principles at work in the reactionary posture employed by Republicans, the posture itself proves such a detriment to these principles that their message is left largely unheard.  Perhaps, this belies the fact that the communication of core Republican principles (largely conservative) so often falls upon deaf ears in the public-at-large.

Contrary to most current proposals, Republicans should not redefine their principles, but rather, their posture.  Setting aside military policies, the programs set forth by Republicans in the past decade, when defined positively, have been warmly received and proven successful. The reform of welfare in 1996 shows this point surely enough.

The necessary posture for Republicans is a proactive one. To better color this abstract notion, a few issues will be mentioned in this light. Conservative immigration policies, though well-founded, are often viewed as harsh and uncaring. What if Republicans placed a larger emphasis on support for a greater flow of legal immigration that places value upon legal entrants into this country?  It must be shown that Republicans care for people as an extention of their principles.  In the same way, Republicans speak of the value of life with regard to abortion--often in a way that abstracts principle from people.  What if they placed a greater emphasis on parental counseling and adoption care services? This is not to belittle those who already do such services, but to point to the need for a greater push of these proactive approaches.

Proactivism must outweigh reactionism in the Republican posture. The American people, for good or bad, have largely dismissed profound ideas for consistent action.  In that light, the profound ideas that emanate from the conservative wing of the Republican party must be shown forth in concrete action of a positive nature. These ideas are founded upon the great notion of supreme truth and compassion upon one's neighbor, why aren't these great truths exhibited in the great spirit of compassion that shape them?

Starting today, I will write on 5 ways in which Republicans can reconnect with the public--namely, the younger portion of the public who are becoming a more important voting bloc. Number 5 on the list is what the title of this entry implies: Republicans need to become known as those who stand on the strength of their convictions.

For an example of Republican cowardice and wish-washiness, I would like to refer the reader to a National Review article from 10/9--"The Chairman Dissents."  Speaking of a travasty-of-a-report on U.S. intelligence preceding the Iraq War by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Byron York indirectly contrasts moral fortitude with moral ambiguity. The case studies in this example are Pat Roberts on the one side, and Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snow on the other.

In a case of blatant politicking, Democrats on the committee, led by Jay Rockefeller, altered a more-accurate description of the report in favor of one that parroted Democratic talking points and was blatantly inaccurate. This was a disastrous situation for committee Republicans, who knew that in such a situation, they could count on two of their colleagues to switch sides and alter the balance of power. After such treachery occurred, Chairman Pat Roberts wrote about the report: "These conclusions are a myth."

It is a dark day for Republicans when they cannot count on their own to take a stand on simple matters of integrity. In a day in which the American public are accepting moral ambiguity as politics-as-usual, many Republicans are not trying to buck the trend. Our most prominent figures becomes Rep. Ney from Ohio, or Mark Foley in Florida. In the shadow of these figures, the barking of principled Republicans becomes an irritant to a public that has been conditioned into thinking that conscience is outdated.

Why must Rick Santorum become an anomaly for his outspoken convictions? Instead of Republicans ensuring that conviction becomes a staple of the party, they allow moral compromise and stalwarts like Santorum become painted as extremists. The public seeing them as outside the mainstream, these principled conservatives find themselves nearing the blade that will sever their political viability.

Yet, younger voters in our country have seen the devastating effects of moral ambiguity upon our political parties and culture-at-large. We have seen the celebation of gay former governors who leave their families for the sake of depraved gratification; we grimly acknowledge the hiding of pedophilia within the halls of Congress. We have seen the devastating effects of broken families; we grieve over the babies born out thoughtless promiscuity to single mothers.

If Republicans become a party defined by principle, as they appeared after their 1994 "Contract with America", they will be seen as a voice of moral clarity and will attract young voters out of the darkness of ambiguity. If this means cleaning house and sacrificing politicians like Hagel and Snowe on the altar of principle, then the sacrifice must be made.

For much of the past several decades, it was assumed amongst Republicans that the black community's vote was solidly entrenched within the Democratic Party. As such, they generally ignored the community, as RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman now readily admits between profuse apologies.

As our country becomes more polarized over ideological and philosophical grounds, it becomes less culturally polarized. The defense of marriage crosses racial lines. The right to life crosses ethnic barriers. Hence, the dramatic improvement of President Bush and the Republican Party in Hispanic votes, and the slight improvement in Black votes in 2004.

Meanwhile, more wealthy, white suburbanites are moving toward the Democratic Party. This is clearly noticed in the metropolitan suburbs and amongst the dot com millionaires.

This said to highlight the fact that in the next decade, certain solid "blue" and "red" states should experience dramatic shifts. For an example of the electoral trend, one should perhaps notice the different trajectories of Maryland and Virginia. The black community is bolstering Republican hopes in Maryland; the white, suburbanite yuppies in Virginia are hurting the prospects of George Allen. Perhaps these brushstrokes are too broad, but I think they point us toward new electoral strategies.

Young conservatives like myself often had our idealism squashed in the liberal stronghold of Maryland. We were given no voice and our statewide politicians were given virtually no chance. Registered Democrats outnumber Republicans 2-1 in Maryland, and even worse, a lot of that advantage was due to a black constituency that Republicans couldn't reach. In my public high school in Gaithersburg, blacks and whites shared the same tables and maintained friendships. In Maryland public politics, they often stand opposed in bitter opposition to one another.

Enter Michael Steele. He didn't need to spend time in the cafeteria at Gaithersburg High School to realize that polarization along racial lines within public politics is destructive to a greater sense of community and public wellbeing. Maryland will not grow holistically until politicians are less beholden to one race and rely more upon a broader consensus defined by issues. Michael Steele is running a campaign to bridge the racial divide, and his movement has momentum, not only because of his charisma, but because of a broad dissatisfaction with the Maryland Democratic Party amongst the black community.

Why have Democrats not paid as much attention to the black community as they have to white, suburban swing voters? On the one hand, it could be considered effective politics. On the other, it could be considered a systematic neglect of a constituency long taken for granted. In addition, why have the black community in Maryland (which constitutes a quarter of the population and the largest black middle class in the country) not been given a greater voice in state and national politics? Are Democrats as serious about their values as much as their votes?

Benjamin Cardin, like much of the rest of the Democratic establishment, cannot be trusted to do anything other than pander to black activists and then ignore the community at large. The black community knows this! That is why they wanted a Democrat for Senate who would listen to them--Kweisi Mfume. Instead, the "establishment" chose the man whom they were more comfortable with.

In rides the charismatic Michael Steele, a black Republican who has a mind of his own and is willing to express his principled independence. He is not beholden to a party as much as he is to principle, and one of those principles is that the tables on Capitol Hill should be like those at Gaithersburg High School.

Maryland celebrates diversity as a virtue and value that we hold dear. The Maryland Democratic Party parades diversity as a political trump card always at its disposal. As long as the MDP treats blacks as their ace-in-the-hole and not as a rich strand in their state's cultural and communal tapestry, they will risk a mass defection of black voters to a party that knows the pain of several decades of racial solitude.

The blessing in all this is that both parties will be drawn to listen to the voice of the oft-marginalized black community.

It has been said that "a house divided cannot stand." Apparently, the echoes of the these historic words now fall upon deaf ears. As the conflict in Iraq wore on and the President's numbers began to dip, it was easier to find prominent Daily Kos Democrats than loyal Republicans. In 2004, there was not enough room on the coattails of President Bush for the many eager Republican politicians. In 2006, Republicans act as if the man under the coat has leprosy.

Some might say that criticizing party loyalty in this instance is politically naive. Of course, a politician does not want to attach him/herself to a sinking ship. It makes sense to do whatever is possible to keep oneself afloat.

Conversely, who decided that the Bush Administration is a sinking ship?  Could it be argued that the ship has been sabotaged in part by the desertion of Republican supporters?

I may disagree with some of the choices the Bush Administration has made, but they have have consistently stuck to their guns, even when under fire. They have often ventured into "no man's land" on issues like Social Security and Immigration, even with little support, because they knew that certain issues cannot be brushed under the rug.
Much more can be said of them than many of their fellow Republicans.

One of the handful of Republicans who have unabashedly supported President Bush throughout is Senator Rick Santorum. Like the President, he has a reputation for being a man of his word, even at the expense of his popularity. Even when given prominent opportunities to distance himself from the President, he expresses his belief that the President has done a great job and conducted the war in an effective manner. Yet, even this principled public warrior is often neglected by his own party.

This all said to make this final charge to Republicans: Return to the leader of your party. Support your President and defend his policies. As long as the debates are characterized by Democratic ad hominem and Republican abandonment, the battle is lost. Engage the debates and support the principled leaders of your party. This does not mean that free-spending Republicans should be embraced, but the defenders of the President and principle certainly should be.

Support the President. Support Senator Rick Santorum. Support your party.

When the Twin Towers were knocked down, the American people not only saw a gaping hole in New York, they felt it. Only the most callous-hearted were able to avoid shedding at least a few tears in the following days. We all felt a sense of loss. Cameras were often drawn to the faces of our Greatest Generation, as they experienced the pain of Pearl Harbor anew. Perhaps the most closely scrutinized group after 9/11 were those of older parents and professionals. Tears filled their eyes too as the last vestiges of 60's/70's idealism was dramatically ripped from their hearts. The Utopian dream was dead.

But where were the youth? Where were the profiles of the adolescents and collegians, each shaken and shattered in their own unique way? Perhaps the stereotypes of selfishness and indifference kept social investigators at bay. We didn't experience Pearl Harbor, nor did we experience the Utopian dream of earlier decades.

Yet, we cried as well.

Perhaps on that day more than any other, we were shaken out of our materialistic, comfort-induced slumber and awakened to the realities of the world. As little children, we clung to our mothers' skirts, knowing that we would find protection within their folds. How we longed for those folds on that fateful September morn.

When the events of 9/11 unfolded, high schoolers found themselves in lockdown within their schools. Collegians around the nation gathered around TV's in their dormrooms and watched the tragedy with ashen faces. Our lives were changed too.

Many don't seem to realize that the younger generations in our society do not remember the Cold War firsthand. While those raised in the last half-century lived in the shadow of death--the awaiting of the inevitable cataclysmic nuclear holocaust--those who are children of the 90's found this fear to be almost mythical and surreal. For us, the shadow existed only in textbooks.

In that way, the response of our nation's youth must be viewed as entirely unique and immensely important. Like our forebears in decades past, we have been denied our sense of invincibility. When we ride airplanes, we imagine terrorists, box-cutters, and heroism. Speeding along in a subway car, we imagine lethal gasses dealing fatal doses to nearby passengers. Opening mail, we imagine anthrax making contact with our skin. Even snipers threaten the daily stroll through the neighborhood.

No longer should we consider those raised in the 90's to be the pampered benefactors of temporary peace and wealth, but rather, we are now the "9/11 Generation." We should attain that label because we have borne witness. Our minds are forever emblazoned with the image of American power, pride, and security being mercilessly leveled.

I watched the towers fall during my freshman year of college. Every moment of that event found itself captured within my tears. I cannot fathom invincibility. My view and treatment of the world now operates around principles like vigilance and fortitude. I now live within the valley of the shadow of death. I belong to the 9/11 Generation.

 A columnist in The American Spectator in June remarked that he departed from the view of much of his former colleagues at National Review by opposing the Iraq War, and he did so largely because he felt the case had not been made with certainty for the presence of WMD in Iraq. While this article made some excellent points and helpful critiques of both the war effort and basic political courtesy, it betrayed a misconception that most Americans currently make regarding the President's rationale for war.

No, I will not say it was for humanitarian reasons (as much as I would like to say so), nor will I make the ridiculous charge that it was economically-motivated (How much does a war cost? Ask Congress.) Bush apologists who make the former claim are being naive and Bush-bashers who make the latter claim are being cynical and vindictive.

Rather, I would boil this down to a splitting of hairs when it comes to language and intentions. President Bush and his allies clearly stated that they believed that WMD's were in Iraq. Many have taken that fact and run with it in outrageous directions. Let it be said here: There is a distinction to be made regarding the President's claim. Our motive for war in Iraq was not the WMD's themselves, but the assumption that they were there.

This is where the additional body of reasons come into play.
1) Iraq had an arsenal of WMD's in the past.
2) Iraq had used their arsenal of WMD's in the past.
3) Iraq not only used WMD's in war (against Iran), but against Iraqi civilians.
4) Iraq posed a threat to the region (invaded Kuwait and peppered Israel with missiles precipitating and during the Gulf War).
5) If 1,2,3,and 4 are true (which they are), then Iraq had to be verifiably disarmed.

After the Gulf War, this was the thinking of the international community. That is why the U.N. passed resolutions mandating weapon inspectors who could verify at all times that Iraq did not have WMD. With their track record, we had to assume the worst and act against Iraq if they even allowed their WMD program to become an unknown quantity. Yet, this is what they did in the 12 of so years in between the two Gulf wars. They were so deceptive and at times openly obstinate to U.N. inspectors, that the assumption could reasonably be made that they were attempting to reconstitute their program. Inspectors have even testified to that fact. Do we forget that this was the rationale used by President Clinton for bombing Iraq for a period of time in the late-90's?

Not only this, but the accountability structures were breaking down. Sanctions were not effective, as many of the participating countries (France, Germany, Russia, China, etc.) were doing back-channel trading with Iraq. In addition, Iraq was become less cooperative with U.N. inspectors by the month. Inspectors were often diverted from facilities and scientists, sometimes stalled while materials and people could be relocated, and even at times refused permission to investigate certain sites/people.

These circumstances clearly gave President Bush the right to assume that Iraq was reconstituting its WMD program, and it therefore gave him the obligation to act. In fact, the case could be made that the bombing under Clinton should have been a full-scale war instead. To reiterate, if we allow that the assumption of WMD could be the basis for an act of force, then the case for the war still stands.

And if we make that allowance, than we have no business accusing the current administration of deception. We must respect the fact that the Bush Administration made an assumption the basis of war (and rightly so). The ensuing evidence of WMD need not verify their assumption. If the assumption was allowed to be made by Iraqi noncompliance, than the case for war was established.

Following a cultural trend several decades in the making, America's education system is pandering to and propagating the simplemindedness of its constituency. Perhaps we should have seen it coming. When the 60's and 70's brought forth the Age of Autonomy and separated the concepts of freedom and truth, many conservatives believed our country was headed to hell in a handbasket. They watched with horror as irresponsible freedom eroded a sense of deference to a greater good--whether that good was considered the God of the universe, or the preservation of a political system and social order. Conservatives took up the fight when it pertained to the dignity of human life or the institution of marriage, but with pertaining to education, every child has been left behind.

The shift that occurred in the past several decades might better be described as philosophical-theological in character, rather than cultural. The greatest changes were not in attitude toward a myriad of social issues, but underlying assumptions about the how knowledge is obtained and the purpose of man. In philosophical jargon, the study of how we know things is called epistemology, and that of studying man is called anthropology.

Let me set the shift before the reader in simple terms: Two trends emerged during the latter half of this past century. The first trend was one that ushered in the idea that nothing is knowable with certainty (postmodernism)--a departure from the earlier belief that everything can be known with certainty (modernism). As a result, truth went from being "those things which can be proven" to being obsolete for all intensive purposes. This has led to what we now term relativism. The second trend built on Enlightenment ideals to separate the study of man from the study of God (theology). As postmodernism made individuals the sole arbitor of "truth", this exclusive study of man encouraged a man-centered worldview that purported freedom to be the equivalent of animalistic self-gratification as opposed to choosing the path of greatest virtue.

(I know this might seem pretty deep, but I encourage you to continue reading as I show where these trajectories lead...)

This is all to show that these signs of moral failure and social decline in our country are only emblematic of deeper trends of thought, and that those trends extend across all aspect as society and must be engaged on a deeper level. This particularly pertains to education. While conservatives have been fighting in recent years for school choice, accountability, the teaching of abstinence, etc., they have been ignoring the deeper and more disturbing patterns of thought.

Postmodernism and personal autonomy are the sole worldviews at work in today's education system. That is why the Socratic pursuit of knowledge has been pushed out of the classroom door in favor of the "practicalities." Students are given uncertain answers presented as fact, rather than questions that draw them deeper down avenues of discovery and creativity. Why discuss the deeper questions regarding the origins of the universe when there is a well-packaged theory called evolution? Teaching methods more often deal with a "7 practical steps to success" format, rather than asking the philosophical assumptions that underlie every academic assertion. The proverbial rabbit trail has been disgarded in favor of the bunny-hop.

No wonder American education is declining! We give half-baked answers and ignore questions. We ignore theory in favor of the practical. This includes a rising disdain toward traditional disciplines like history and philosophy (which often ask the deeper questions instead of proferring brute facts) in order to pacify those who think that such time should be given to character development and sexual-experimental classes. Students are trained for specialized activities as if they are some machine cog whose only purpose is production. They are not trained for thinking and the pursuit of knowledge.

Thus, the conservative fight is not against ignorant evolutionary theories, explicit sex-ed programs, or bureaucratic underachievement and low standards. These blights are merely symptoms of a greater philosophical disease. Even if a student escapes his/her educational experience with a conscience intact, they still carry the baggage that accompanies this disease, and are ill-prepared to be lifelong learners and thinkers. Perhaps our greatest challenge as conservatives is to teach our children to not accept the easy answer.

Which teacher has the more heinous record, the venom-filled ideologue or the mild-mannered propagandist? I would argue that it would certainly be the latter, but these do not seem to be the academic elitists most targeted by fair-minded conservatives. We seem much more intent on removing the spiteful ignoramous from the University of Colorado who made dispicable comments pertaining to 9/11 than we do the gentle postmodernists who denigrate any sense of truth or the dogmatic materialists who present subjective theories as fact.

But of the aforementioned options, who does the greatest damage to truth and constitutes the most manipulative threat to our students? Surely, our nation's collegiates are able to recognize fire-breathers and shield themselves from the heat. If you challenge a student's wit with consummate professionalism or a supreme sense of piety, however, you gain the ability to disarm and manipulate. Even the great 20th century theologian J. Gresham Machen was cast into doubt and confusion early in his career by the piety of German arch-heretic Wilhelm Hermann.

All this to say that the most devilish in academia today are not dressed in red pajamas and wielding pinchforks--they are wearing polo shirts and khakis and wielding all-star smiles.  A gentle reminder to my fellow young adults: Beware the postmodern "love" and piety that would rob even the most discriminating heart of simple reason.

Everybody likes to "talk Africa", so I'll take up the task.

When talking about either the AIDS pandemic or rampant starvation, the debate usually revolves around the following points:

Mr. Democrat: We have sooo much money. Why can't we think beyond ourselves and give more to those who are suffering around the world. With money, we can buy retroviral medicines for those with HIV and food and healthcare for those who are malnourished.

Mr. Republican: I agree with you, we have a lot of money and must help those in Africa. Money isn't necessarily the answer, however. The power structures and systems of government in most African countries are corrupt and often downright evil and oppressive. We should demand regime changes so that the money we do offer will reach the people in need instead of the people in charge. We can even offer financial incentives for governments that reform.



Now, lets get this straight-- While I heartily agree with the sentiment of both Mr. Democrat and Mr. Republican, and would certainly endorse many of the points made by Mr. Republican as a more effective strategy, we must realize that both of these arguments betray largely naturalistic and materialistic assumptions.

Since when have we concluded that the grand problems in the world are the result of politics and economics?! In each of those sphere, I would contend that there is, practically-speaking, a right way and a wrong way (the former belonging to conservatives on most every issue), but we are ignoring the greater reality of sin and redemption in this world.

I am a Christian and believe in the true God of this world; not a Marxist who makes the state or "greater good" a god in itself. Therefore, I assert that: (1) All problems originate with the sinful condition that has infected all of humanity since the Garden of Eden, and not with unjust power structures and unfair economic practices. These latter realities are merely symptomatic of the first. (2) The remedy comes through the redemption from sin offered freely through Jesus Christ to all who believe. Anything short of this remedy is merely superficial and will affect no lasting change.

How does this play out in my politics? I am surely not advocating a NCO (National Christianizing Organization), for that surely denigrates the sanctity of both the state and the Church. What I am advocating is for conservative Christians to realize that better policies don't equal good policies. Accountability and the general encouragement of democracy and a free market are good, but not absolutely so. They won't cure the problem of sin, nor offer the eternal hope (and consequently, cultural renewal) that comes through Jesus Christ.

Therefore, let us stop betraying our Marxist assumptions about the universe and resolve to establish a Christian approach to foreign affairs outside of politics--namely, a proactive approach that brings Christians from our country to others to preach the Good News (and in some cases, be reminded of good orthodoxy). People need the Bread of Life more than they do bread. As we do this, we can also use the state/poltical realm to affect changes on the more superficial level. In any case, we must remember our starting and ending points!

I just read Ryan Sager's critique (realclearpolitics.com) of Kate O'Beirne's NR article on Giuliani's electoral prospects...

Now, I will admit that I have not read O'Beirne's article yet, but Sager's critique seems to be well-reasoned. We cannot casually dismiss polling numbers and assume that one's record or personal life will necessarily discredit that person. Social conservatives cannot simply sweep Rudy Giuliani under the proverbial rug and pretend that his current polling numbers are an anomaly. It would be a mistake on par with underestimating Hillary Clinton's ability to win a run at the White House. Both of these politicians are powerful public figures with a strong and energized base (although in different places on the ideological spectrum).

By no means could I be considered a Giuliani-optimist, however. Strong leadership abilities and fiscal conservatism may play well amongst Northeast Republicans (as McCain put on display during the 2000 primaries). In the socially-conservative South, I see Giuliani's boat getting sunk. As the primaries move from New Hampshire to South Carolina, it seems to me that Sen. McCain is currently in the best position. If you recall, President Bush took a giant step forward in SC in 2000, and McCain lost--noticably hurt by his attack upon Falwell and other southern social conservatives.

This time around, McCain occupies the high ground in the important southern primaries. He has mended his relationship with Jerry Falwell, and been more conciliatory in tone. Thus, when Giuliani comes south and his social positions prove to demerit his electability, McCain will clean up the pragmatic-principled voters (while Allen, Romney, etc. will attract a small cadre of voters who will vote purely on principle).

I have read "Leadership" by Rudy Giuliani, and find him a more-than-competent politician who displays that leadership quality to a tee. He would be a great president in many respects. Yet, we cannot throw social conservatism out the window in the same manner that President Bush and many national Republicans have discarded fiscal conservatism. Our movement needs both the fiscal conservatives in the North and the social conservatives in the South. We cannot embrace Rudyism at the expense of Brownbackianism. If we forsake either group, we will need a coroner--and I dread the day when Dr. Hillary and Nurse Dean come to pick apart our rotting remains.

2008 will not be the year of Rudy, nor should it be.

Update: With E.J Dionne's article "The End of the Right" having appeared today (see realclearpolitics.com), I believe the posting below must be given greater credence. Dionne is right in noting that something is wrong--I think I have the right diagnosis and the best potential prescription.

Out of the giant vacuum of sound emanating from many of today's leading conservatives billows one greater than all others: Where are the charismatic leaders of the conservative movement?

While dealing with the public persona of politicians may seem superficial, it is surely not unimportant. President Bush serves as a good case in point: Good policy is only capitalized upon when it is accompanied by good PR. Now, is it just me, or did the case for war in Iraq seem a lot simpler than it sounded coming from the White House? President Bush spoke with unmistakable conviction and even had a few clever sound bites when speaking of the current war, yet public support is waning.

Another example: Social Security in the coming years will buckle beneath the weight of a dependent elderly class that cannot be supported by a smaller working class. This is a crisis! The incredible strain and burden caused by this program on the U.S. economy would be devastating. Efforts by conservatives to remedy this problem have fallen on deaf ears, however. The talk of personal savings accounts has been about as effective as Barry Bonds' steroid defense.

You see, friends, it is easy for conservatives to create scapegoats to explain away their inability to cast any sort of vision that resonates with the American public. Perhaps the most common is the liberally-biased network and cable news networks. "Our brainy policies simply do not have the needed mouthpieces in the media." What a copout! Did conservative icon Ronald Reagan have friendly faces in the media? Very few at best. In addition, the liberal monopoly has largely been broken, thanks to the work of Fox News and the rise of the blogosphere.

No--the problem is not outside of our circles, but within. The problem is found in a movement bereft of effective communicators. At the time being, we have brilliant politicians and superb workers at the grassroots level. This has enabled the movement to stay afloat. At some point, however, these two must be consolidated by the work of those belonging to that rare breed of charismatic politicians.

It was once said by a man who interviewed Reagan: "There will never be another one like him in our lifetime." While his sentiment is certainly appreciated by many-a-conservative, its implications would prove a death knell for conservatism in our lifetime as well. The political realm cries for another like Reagan, but while his conviction may be mirrored by our current President; his candor by a certain Senator from Arizona; his courage by a former mayor of New York--there is currently no one to fill his shoes as a grand vision-caster who will ignite the imaginations of the current generation.

The question I pose to those of you in the blogosphere who might read this post: Will one of you unmask and enjoin this great endeavor? If so, remove the online facade and stand!

I have appreciated the responses to my first entry and am reflecting upon their helpful insights. I realized (with the help of one of those comments) that I should not have left our President with merely that negative spin. He deserves much more credit than that--hence, the title of the entry.

President Bush has not had a free and easy-going presidency. Unlike the previous administration, he did not have the luxury of offering lip-service to serious foreign policy issues, reinforced by token political maneuverings and a more general policy of appeasement. When the U.S.S Cole was bombed years ago, President Clinton needed only lob a few missiles in a few scattered directions and assure the public that the economy was still sound, while Osama bin Laden remained at large.

Rather, as a new movie will remind us in a few days, one of the greatest symbols of our economic liberty and prosperity was ruthlessly cut down, along with thousands of lives (not to forget the Pentagon and Flight 93 as well). Our new President, who had staked his reputation on compassionate conservatism and was making overtures at vast, bipartisan compromise on a variety of issues, was inextricably placed in one of those rare moments in American history. Per Goldwater's classic line "...a time of choosing", President Bush was given the choice of ineptitude and insincerity in the name of bipartisanship or showing principled courage that would benefit our country (and the causes of freedom) at the expense of personal popularity. He chose the latter course.

I am not arguing that we should pity President Bush for the position that September 11th put him in. Rather, we should be reluctant to criticize the so-called "Bush Doctrine" as hasty or unrealistic (as many seem now to believe). President Bush had the opportunity to remain the compassionate conservative and perhaps usher much of conservatism into a new era, but he chose instead to embrace principle and the well-being of our nation's posterity. He set the compassionate domestic agenda aside so that he could lead the unpopular and protracted fight against those who would rob the world of peace, freedom, and security.

While I embrace the compassionate conservative agenda in principle, I have not been pleased with its practice by the Bush Administration. That said however, the agenda could have perhaps been much more successful and palatable if the President had been more selfish and not alienated the Left with his foreign policy. He could have traded his firm foreign policy for greater domestic achievements.

Would I make that trade? Certainly not. The President embraced self-sacrifice rather than shallow popularity. That defines true heroes in my book. He has made his choice. I have made mine. Despite my numerous disagreements with his domestic agenda, I choose to support the President who has sacrificed his legacy on the altar of principle.

In recent years, I have read and enjoyed the increasing number of labels handed out to particular groups of conservatives (e.g. crunchy cons and neo-cons). At the same time, I am not sure there has been any attempt to specifically label young conservatives and identify the heart of future conservatism.

As a young conservative myself, I am familiar with the philosophical undercurrents and social dispositions of many in this young moment. I was the Communications Director for two years with the Calvin College Republicans, and was a conservative voice in our school newspaper.

In order to "tap the power" of the movement that will someday come to dominate conservative politics, I believe we should seek to understand this movement and, yes....even label it. After some thought and online exploration to make sure that this title would be fitting, I have settled upon the label "conscientious conservatism."

Who wouldn't like that for a title? In Yahool searches, the label "conscientious" was given to conservatives like Tom DeLay and Lindsay Graham to enhance their profile. The term is pregnant with positive connotations, much like Marvin Olasky's "compassionate conservatism", but without the baggage that may now be associated with the latter term because of President Bush's "compromised conservatism."

Let me explain why this the term I have suggested is useful as a label for young conservatives. Young conservatives are awash in the current postmodern millieu, yet they also find themselves to be principled in reaction to the morally corrosive culture of their parents. Thus, they are both less abrasive than many of today's conservatives, yet they are filled with a greater sense of conviction. They do not merely bemoan the condition of the American family as it has become, they have experienced it in their own upbrining. They speak, not as outsiders blowing hot wind at pertinent issues, but as insiders who have experienced the issues on the practical level and cry out "No more!"

This is a movement to be reckoned with, and it must be taken seriously. It cries for charismatic voices, like former OK Rep. J.C. Watts. It desires the principled and self-sacrificing politics of Sen. Rick Santorum. It seeks compromise, but not at the expense of conviction. It is hard to find high-profile politicians who would adequately fill that role.

As "conscientious conservatives" continue to find their voice in our nation's academic institutions (and are given greater courage by academic rights champion, David Horowitz), they must be pulled into the mainstream of conservative politics. They need young and diverse representatives of their cause. This will not only satisfy their disillusionment with the 60's-70's disillusionment generation, but these faces and this brand of politics would bring a new-found vitality to the diminishing conservative movement.