I ran across the following essay by New Gingrich in the February 11, 2009 issue of The Washington Times. It offers a very succinct yet practical — and in my opinion, except for a lack of mention of the social issues, a very correct view — of Where Does the Conservative Movement Go from here?
His advise basically is summed up in three steps he outlines:
1. Advocate first principles with courage, clarity, persistence and cheerfulness.
2. Insist on developing solutions based on those principles and insist on measuring other proposals against those principles.
3. Be prepared to oppose Republicans when they are wrong and side with Democrats when they are right, but always make the decision to support or oppose a matter of first principles and the application of those principles.
In all, I think he is quite correct.
But what I personally find most refreshing is that Gingrich — quite correctly, in my opinion — links the current Obama Administration with the previous Bush Administration.
The Bush-Obama big government, big bureaucracy, politician-empowering, high-tax, high-inflation and high-interest-rate system continues to grow and to place the country in greater and greater danger from inflation, bureaucratic control of the economy, political interference in every aspect of our lives and massive debt.
The first job of the conservative movement is simply to tell the truth about how bad these Bush-Obama proposals are. The 2008 $180 billion stimulus program in the spring failed. The 2008 summer $345 billion housing bailout failed. The 2008 fall $700 billion Wall Street bailout failed. That was the first $1.2 trillion, and it was on former President George W. Bush’s watch, but all three passed with then Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s “yes” vote.
Now President Obama represents continuity rather than change. The new spending bill (as the president called it in his Williamsburg speech last week) is more of the Bush-Obama continuity and represents more of the same instead of “change you can believe in.”
Notice how many times Gingrich writes “Bush-Obama”?
And in all of this, I think Newt Gingrich is absolutely correct: as Michelle Malkin has said, “George W. Bush ‘pre-socialized’ America for Obama.” Furthermore, I think Newt Gingrich is right to emphasize that the fact that George W. Bush was not a conservative. “Compassionate conservatism” is just another name for “big government liberalism” and as we — conservatives as well as all Americans — should have known, “big government liberalism” fails.
And yes, in many ways, George W. Bush was a failure. A liberal and a failure (but I repeat myself). Personally, I do not think conservatism can move on until it admits that. For until conservatives do, the general American population is perfectly justified in thinking that the failures of the supposedly Bush Administration are the failures of conservatism. They are not and we conservatives should and must be bold and honest enough to say so!
Conservatism has not failed. Conservatives have failed because we (with but few exceptions) have allowed ourselves to be identified with and defined by the failed liberal policies of the Republicans!

A very sober (and sobering!) examination of where we stand.
randy streu Wednesday, February 11th at 4:57PM EST (link)Thanks for the reminder.
Blogging also at
SLC Republitarian
The Minority Report
You're welcome
ZootSuit Wednesday, February 11th at 4:59PM EST (link)and thank you for the recommendation
***** Unrepentant African-American nationalist, Unapologetic African-American conservative!
I see an interesting parallel with the left-right line-up in Israel
civil_truth Wednesday, February 11th at 6:50PM EST (link)If I’ve interpreted properly, the left-right divide in Israel is primarily on foreign policy, where the right has a strong defense policy whereas the left thinks it can negotiate peace with the Arabs.
Similarly, Bush and the right adopted a strong defense + preemptive approach to Islamist terrorists, whereas the left thinks it can negotiate with Islamists and with other totalitarians.
Domestically, both the left and the right in Israel tend to approach socialistic policies - the Kibbutz movement and the early European immigrants tended to be socialists in their economics. I suspect there are differences - I think that historically the left (Labor) looked more after the Ashkenazim, whereas Likud championed the economic interests of the Sephardim. The smaller parties tend to champion other groups, such as Russian Jews, Orthodox, Arab, etc. Nonetheless, they all tend to favor governmental interventions and fight over their pieces of the pie.
Then if I understand Gringrich, he’s saying that the Democratic and Republican leadership and substantial numbers of their member have favored big government etc, even though they disagree on military and defense issues, and he’s putting Bush in that group.
There thus seem to be some interesting similarities between Bush and Netanyahu.
And Rightly So!