Abdication of the right, with calculated 'triangulations' and 'compassionate conservatism' and 'new tone' and 'bipartisanship'...were all euphemisms for a very blatant abdication of conservative advocacy. This was the equivalent of an attempt to appease the left and the democrats. But there is no appeasing them. They just, rightly, took it as a sign of weakness. And on issues, since there was no Reagan defense of conservative principles, they were correctly detecting weakness. There were no conservatives espousing conservative policy at the administration level...with the exception of Donald Rumsfeld and John Ashcroft. And both were muzzled, or undercut by orders from HQ. This is why we had a 51 to 48% electoral split, instead of 60% to 40%.
So then the electorate generally speaking is like a heard of sheep? If a politician starts talking about small government and freedom, the electorate will be lead away from their current affinity toward big government?
That may be true, but how pathetic is that and how liberal is that. Why should any politician be counted on to do that -- when the general electorate doesn't want it.
Small government and freedom is something the electorate has to want and demand. We can't rely on politicians leading us there. That is the very essence of self responsibility, small government and freedom.
The responsibility rests with electorate.