"Why is it so hard for the failed leadership of the Republican Party to understand that the Party's present woes are directly related to the fact that they left Reagan behind years ago?," asks Alan Keyes at WND.
"Part of the problem," as Keyes see it: The GOP thinks --
mainly about how to get and keep political power. What made Ronald Reagan the man he was had more to do with thinking about how to get and keep the moral fiber and liberty of the American people, the strength of our Constitution and the vitality of our private enterprise approach to economic life. He articulated this thinking even when politicians like Jeb Bush's father ridiculed him as a right-wing extremist, doomed to political failure and irrelevance. Reagan had true political conviction. In this respect he resembled the committed leftists of the Obama faction. Unlike Obama, however, he didn't lie about his convictions, but spoke them with courage and clarity despite efforts by his opposition to ridicule and marginalize them.
But what gave Reagan his strength? He practiced a politics of conviction. Keyes writes:
His conviction was true in the sense that he truly believed what he said, but it was also true in the more profound and important sense that it truly reflected the ideas and principles upon which the American republic is founded. He was a republican by purpose and conviction, not just by party label. His positions aimed to strengthen the republic, not just his own chances of victory at the polls. When anti-communism passed out of style in the late 1960s and '70s, he continued to sound the call to battle against its destruction of human liberty. He cared more about preserving the freedom and sovereignty of the American people than about winning their momentary applause with popular positions that endangered both. Unlike the Rockefeller/Bush Republicans, he was never intimidated by the leftist's phony posture of moral superiority. He never gave in to the temptation to oppose them for political purposes by offering a better-managed version of their government-dominated, elitist utopia.
Is there an alternative to the "docile" acceptance of Obamaism? Keyes concludes:
As I listen to the Republican politicians who seem willing docilely to accept that future (as they are docilely accepting Obama's usurpations and extremist appointments), I learn to expect no good from them. This leads me to the certainty that the only hope for America lies in the leadership of the people themselves. But who among them remembers what that means? Things like the tea party events, the 912 project and http://aipnews.com suggest that there are some, but can they be brought together to see and fulfill their true vocation soon enough? One first step must be to turn decisively away from the [no longer] Republican distraction.