Well, for those who are upset that Obama was elected, that the Democrats have a majority and that the Democrats will likely continue to have a majority due to their planned amnesty, there is some positive news. No, I do not intend to argue that Clinton brought us Newt, or that Carter gave us Reagan, I have argued before that those analogies are not likely to prove valid. Instead, I would make two arguments that may give conservatives a little hope.

First, look at the times of our grandparents, our parents, even ourselves. We had FDR, followed by the equally interventionist Truman. There then came Eisenhower, who, while conservative, was hardly the one to turn back the clock and undo what FDR had done. We then had Kennedy, who reversed only a little of FDR's damage, before he was followed by Johnson and massive government intrusion, in the form of the Great Society. We then had Nixon, who was every bit as intrusive as Johnson, and Carter with his incompetence. Only with the Reagan presidency did we have even a hint of real movement to the right, any increase in personal freedom.

My point is, if our predecessors could not only survive in such interventionist times, but also thrive, then even should the Democrats stack the deck to give themselves a lock on all three branches of government for the foreseeable future, we can still thrive. Granted their constant meddling will make it harder, and their insane foreign policy will make the future much more bleak for much of the rest of the world, but that was true for much of the 20th century as well. It will not be a good time either inside America or out, but at least we can survive*.

The other positive note is, I admit, a bit depressing, but still somewhat positive.

I mentioned above the times in which the past few generations have lived. What I failed to mention was the last time in the past we had a move to the side of freedom. And that would be, sadly, the second presidency of Grover Cleveland, the last hard money, laissez faire Democrat. After Cleveland, both parties turned to some degree of interventionism, and until 1980 neither took any serious step away from ever increasing government power. Granted, the US never became as authoritarian as Europe did in the 30's and 40's, but we also completely abandoned even a pretense of laissez faire.

Only with the rise of Goldwater, and then the Reagan revolution, was there even a slight chance to move either party back to the side of individual liberty and smaller government.

Sadly, that whole chance fell through in or around 1996, when the Contract with America fizzled, and was completely extinguished in 2000 when we nominated a "compassionate conservative" rather than a conservative supporting freedom.

We tried again, this election, but all the true small government conservatives were left out early, leaving us with covert large government conservatives like Huckabee and Romney to pass as the standard bearers of freedom. And even they lost out. And while some took heart from McCain's pick of Palin, I knew when he fired Gramm that he was no fan of the free market.

So, we find ourselves once again in the position of post-Cleveland Democrats, believers in a free market with no standard bearer for our cause. Of course, it is possible this is a transient problem, and someone unexpected will rise up in 2012 and win for our side. On the other hand, having shot down real conservatives in 2000 and 2008, we don't really have a Reagan or Newt waiting in the wings, so I worry it will be a longer wait than that. We may win in 2012 if Obama really flubs it, as I expect he will. But likely we will win with a Nixon or an Eisenhower, not a Reagan or a Goldwater**.

After that, I can't tell. Maybe things will turn and the Republicans will see a resurgence. Maybe not. Perhaps our new standard bearer will flub as bad as Obama and the party will face decline. It doesn't really matter, as for the moment it seems the forces pushing freedom are in eclipse and the big government proponents rule both parties.

What is ironic is, today as in Cleveland's day, all our problems were caused by the big government policies, yet were blamed on the free market. So, as at the end of the 19th century, so today, we see the proponents of an expanding, intrusive government, profiting from their own mistakes. The more they fail to deliver on promises, the more power we give them.

It would be amusing if it weren't so depressing. They blamed the free market for failing to be perfect, promised perfection if they had just a bit more power. Yet, once they were in power, their plans caused crises the free market never had. Rather than admit their mistakes, they blamed the free market and asked for more power, and we gave it to them. And again and again and again.

And we wonder why things only get worse. Are we so blind (or so absolutely ignorant of economics) that we can't see that giving more power to those who made the mistake in the first place may be a bad idea?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

* Of course, should the Democrats really blow it, and, for instance, let Iran not only get the bomb but provide it to terrorists, we will have the small consolation that no one will be blamed but the Democrats if they manage to secure their position.

** Sadly, I still stand by my earlier analysis. Having lost to a left-leaning Democrat, the party will move left rather than right. So I expect we won't see a Jindall or Palin or Hunter or Thompson in 2012, not even a Huckabee or Romney. Likely it will be some bland, centrist Republican who manages to offend no one, while really appealing to no one either. If we win it will be because of Obama's Carter-like performance, and not because of any excitement on our part.