The 21st century's first president offered ideas that arose from the reduced state of morality and the public habit of expecting a large costly government to do something about even the second-order problems of the day, such as declining schools and the somewhere-down-the-line financial crisis of Social Security. Nothing the president addressed himself looked urgent enough for sharp definition -- for the separation of sheep from goats. Only the war on terrorism had this quality, and because it dragged on and on without an obvious solution, numerous Americans ceased to see it as a challenge or deep concern. Wherefore, they voted Democratic.
Just humming along seems the natural condition of American politics, except when grave challenges arise, like the Depression or the Soviet threat. To this condition we may be returning in 2006. Whatever self-definition the Republicans come up with is likely to reflect voter ambiguity about what a government should do for its people. That is, until the terrorists strike again, at which point all bets are off.
What, oh, what to do? A few of us think the natural mission for a political party ought to be the subordination of politics, and political institutions, to larger concerns than the rearrangement of House and Senate seats. Large government breeds dependency, which breeds the expectation of more lucrative dependency. Large government we still have -- larger than ever in the age of "compassionate conservatism," when the reasoning is, we've got all this power, let's use it for good.
How about, instead of using it, handing it back? How about restoring power and responsibility and choice and autonomy to those sectors where federal "benevolence" has crowded them out? How about, for starters, a laudable project on which Republicans earlier gave up -- their president's proposal to let Americans choose what they want done with their Social Security contributions? Too soon, this, for a stunned and bleeding party?
Why?