Sorry about the “snark” - one of my character defects is that I respond like that to (perceived) pretentiousness.

Thanks for the explication. In reality I’m more “OS-360″ than Windows (that is, been watching this show for a very long time, and have heard the “ideology-free, pragmatism” bit many times before) and am so excited to be one of the “you guys” at last.

How did CPAC address the implications of this recent headline?

World Growth To Be Negative In 2009 For First Time Since WW II

Article here:
http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2009/03/world-growth-to-be-negative-in-2009-for.html

Again, how does CPAC or conservative principles address this very real problem?

Much red meat – little substance.

Red meat is substance. You seem to be complaining that there’s not enough sizzle on the steak. I think I see why:

I can tell you that most of the debate about where the movement (and to a lesser extent the Republican party) should be headed took place among activists, lawyers, lobbyists, political pros, non-profit staff, and pundits

Jesus, we’re just freaking doomed.

You’re right — the tea-party peons should just sit down and shut up while you activists, lawyers, lobbyists, and blah-blah-blah-blah-blah figure out what to do. You’ll let us know, I’m sure. I can’t wait.

I have always been suspicious of the reports on which nations have the most freedom and liberty, for instance, because there are many shades of freedom and liberty, and it is hard to score. Add in a wide range of government forms and laws, or at least several forms and laws for each side, and the permutations and combinations get out of hand.

It would be nice, however, to be able to prove the conservative case in a comprehensive manner that leaves liberals little or no room to maneuver. Just dreaming!

Setting aside the snark. . .

Obama isn’t ideological. He doesn’t give a f— about ideology, left, right or center. His motives are a mix of high-mindedness and ego. He wants what’s best (as he sees it) and he wants above all to succeed. He looks at the world as a series of problems, numbered one through ten. He’s determined to take a stab at all ten, but is probably realistic enough to be happy with 70%.

His method is pragmatism. He sees himself as a problem solver and he’ll judge himself by how well he succeeds at solving problems. He believes history will make the same judgment. (He’s right.) His “ideology” is “does it work?”

The thing that makes Obama so dangerous to right wing or left wing is that the people are on the same page as he is: just fix stuff, we don’t care how.

And it’s why Rick and everyone else on the right doesn’t get Obama. You keep trying to pigeonhole him as some kind of latter day Black Panther, or Weatherman, or else as Bambi, or even as a crook, or as a cut n’ run appeaser. But that analysis is just a circle jerk: conservatives throwing the same tired, 90’s era talking points back and forth.

Meanwhile, while you guys are choosing between “socialist” and “communist” as your favorite epithet, the country has tuned you and your tired 1.0 mentality out and is deep into 2.0 territory. Face it: you’re Windows 95, and Obama is a Mac.

Wonderful comment, looking forward to the rest of it where you tell us what we need to know about the new POTUS that you understand and we just don’t get.

Somewhere, sometime, a very smart and knowledgeable team will construct a thoroughgoing comparison between the most likely OUTCOMES OF LIBERALISM and the most likely OUTCOMES OF CONSERVATISM when APPLIED TO THE SAME POLITICAL SITUATION and its issues as the test environment. Maybe in 2050 or later.

While it could never be perfect or complete, and it would find little acceptance by liberals, I assert that it would be an eye-opener for independents and a wide range of conservatives.

The main measures would revolve around freedom of choice, liberty, economic potentials, and equality of opportunity, and, as the backdrop, the provisions of the Constitution–as they stand, and as anyone seriously suggests that it be changed.

We just might then understand more clearly the full impacts of some current decisions of the Congress and President on our nation in a more careful, and unemotional light. It would require an Input/Output Matrix approach that has at least a hundred terms, if not more (an effective econometric matrix for the USSR had 88).

Such a holistic comparison is far beyond my reach to execute–and probably beyond any real possibility of success by any team, either.

The attempt, however, would be an enormous learning experience, and one would hope that some of the fallout would be very useful to conservatism. It would certainly provide a framework for discussion where it would be less possible to subvert the process or to bring in emotional factors of little relevance.
FFT