I know it is usually a losing proposition to predict the future. I should have learned my lesson with the last election. Then again, had the economic downturn delayed just a few weeks I think my predictions would have held. The voters were tiring of "all Obama, all the time" news following his European love fest, and he was slowly declining in the polls until the real economic bust. However, once the economy turned south the fate of McCain was pretty much sealed. Even without Bush rushing to out-socialist the Democrats in his bailout plans, even without McCain's bumbling response, the (largely Democrat fueled) economic collapse would have given the Democrats the presidency, regardless of candidate.

So, despite the poor record I have with predictions, I am going to offer another.

As I have been declaring for some time, the time is fast approaching for the congress to split with Obama. It is clear the economy is not going to make a rapid recovery, and that every time Obama makes a major pronouncement the stock market tanks.  There are only about 9 months before the primary campaigning for 2010 starts in earnest. Now doubtless some Democrats still hope to milk Obama for more concessions on their pet projects, as we see with the cap and trade push. And even the most cautious Democrats probably plan to get one more major spending concession out of him, or maybe a few legislative concessions. But the time is approaching.

What will be interesting will be the period from about June or July through December. During that time, blue dog Democrats, as well as those in shaky seats, and likely the old timers who are more wary of conceding more power to the executive branch, even when held by a friendly Democrat, will begin to more openly oppose Obama, as have Byrd and Rangel already. On the other hand, safe Democrats and many senators not facing reelection will try to milk Obama for as many concessions as they can, probably joined by neophyte legislators, who fail to consider that any power gained by the executive could easily be handed to the other party in the next election.

It is during this factional discord that the Republicans really have a chance to pick up some seats. I know many pundits are arguing there are not enough "at risk" seats for the Republicans to do very well in 2010, but I think they are overestimating how safe incumbents really are. Near the end of this year, when some Democrats are trying to distance themselves from Obama and others are trying to prop him up a bit longer to milk him for all he's worth, there is every opportunity for the right to pick off some apparently safe Democrats. It would not work if the entire congress turns on Obama, as at that point I think the anti-Obama rhetoric would insulate those who do not support him. But while congress is divided, both factions will suffer. Those who support Obama will suffer for being attached to his failed economic measures in the 2010 elections, but those who do not will still be at risk, as Obama supporters will likely smear them as "disloyal" and blame the failure of Obama's initiatives on their lack of support. Granted, by the 2010 elections there will probably be unified opposition to Obama, but that will not undo the damage done in 2009. If the Democrats engage in a mutual bloodletting it will benefit the Republicans.

The only wildcard in this whole matter is the Republican party. Will they finally put up a conservative slate and manage to fire up the base? Or will they continue to put up "safe" moderates who neither fire up the base nor attract moderates, who can get the same from the Democrats? This could go either way, but I have a feeling the Republicans will play it safe, put up the usual slate of bland middle of the road time servers and as a result will squander their chance. A few supposedly safe Democrats may fall, but, by and large, congress will remain very similar after 2010.

Then again, that may be for the best, as it is unlikely Obama's excessively interventionist economic plan will succeed any better than ti did in the 1970's or the 1930's. So maybe it is best to leave congress int he hands of the Democrats, to make sure they get the full measure of blame in 2012.  As I said before, a Republican win in 2010 gives the Democrats a chance to both share the blame for any failures, and steal the credit for any congressional successes, just as Clinton did following 1994. So, though it is a bit depressing that the Republicans will likely squander their chance in 2010, int he long run it is probably for the best.
 
And what of 2012? And after?

Well, I think I am not going out on a limb to predict that we will not see a second Obama term. I know it is very early to make such a prediction, but judging from what he has done so far, and what he has proposed, I can see only escalating inflation, stagnating financial markets, increasing poverty and collapsing industries for the next four years.  Nor has he given any signs of being willing to learn from his mistakes. Yes, he has maintained the Bush defense policies, but I think that is because he does not really care about foreign affairs. Domestic reform is where his heart is, and he has not given an inch on his plans to change our economy. Nor do I think he will. And so, for four years we will suffer from a Carter-like inflation paired with a gradually declining industrial sector, as ever increasing government interference with industry drives investment overseas in search of a safe haven. It won't be pleasant to live through, but it will have one beneficial effect, no new FDR.

What do I mean by that? Simple. After the Great Depression the myth arose that FDR "ended the depression". The right gave credit (wrongly) tot eh war, the left to FDR, but whatever the case, public opinion was such that there was simply no chance Eisenhower would repeal most of FDR's initiatives. Nor would his successors. FDR's programs had become sacrosanct. Fortunately, I doubt we will see that with Obama. Obama will more likely be the next Carter. Recall how Reagan could easily undo most, though not all, of Carter's damage? I think Obama's successor will have a similar mandate to roll back Obama's changes.

Which leaves the question whether he will.

And that all depends on 2010. If the Republicans finally learn from 2010, learn that a slate of "moderates" is a losing proposition, learn that offering "Democrat Lite" policies hands elections to the Democrats. In other words, if the Republicans learn that Reagan won for a reason, that the voters want a choice. If so, then we will probably see an end of the Obama interventionist model. maybe with some remnants lingering, as did Carter's Department of Education and Community Reinvestment Act.

On the other hand, if the Republicans do not learn their lesson, and in 2012 run another moderate nonentity in hopes of winning "the center", they will still likely win, but instead of real reform, I predict we will get nothing but "Obama Lite", a continuation of inflation and intervention. And that will likely mean a one term presidency, followed by yet another interventionist Democrat.

And if that is the case, then we are left hoping that  2020 will be different. And at that point I think I may have to give up any hope for the Republicans.

POSTSCRIPT

I realized that in writing this I implicitly assumed that there is a nice, clear cut definition of "conservative". However, that is clearly a bit of a problem, as even within the ranks of self-identified conservatives there is quite a bit of dispute over what constitutes conservatism. For purposes of this post, let us agree that whatever one's personal views, to fix the damage Obama has done, any conservative who replaces him will need to adopt at least some form of economic conservative position (as I discuss in my posts "Many Types of Conservatives?", "A Realization", "The Angry Right and Conservatives", and "Smaller Government , Fair Weather Friends and Special Cases"), and that anyone pursuing a protectionist "paleo-con" policy is likely to make things worse, as did Hoover with the Smoot-Hawley lunacy in the early stages of the Great Depression.

Actually, my beliefs are not so much "economic conservatism" or "libertarianism" as they are faith in my fellow many and belief in his ability to decide for himself. As I describe in "My Entire Philosophy", I am not an "economic conservative", I am a conservative, I want to set man free so he can achieve everything of which he is capable. And I oppose anyone who wants to limit that freedom, be they liberal, "social conservative" or "paleo-con".