Conservatives might take a measure of solace in reading Jonah Golderg's piece in USA Today as he makes the case that the distinction between conservatism and Republicanism is crucial.  The former, he argues, is thriving:

"From proliferating state-level think tanks to massive organizations based in Washington, D.C., such as the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute, the causes of limited government, defending life and promoting free markets are hardly without champions. And thanks to talk radio, Fox News and a general acceptance of conservatism as a legitimate viewpoint, it has never been easier for conservatives to get their arguments to the public."

Goldberg also credibly acquits conservatism as the modern equivalent of the last best hope for mankind, as well as a kind of pedagogical touchstone which provides the most beneficial lessons for human beings.  It's also unquestionably true that from higher taxes and regulation to the left's 'fresh approach' to foreign policy, to the extent they're able to implement their agenda, it will be met with the intransigent realities of an unforgiving world.  Even Western Europe is finally understanding that low taxation invites capital and encourages entrepreneurial spirit, and that the efficacy of a strong national security policy versus Senator Obama's pledge to win over the minds and hearts of the world's despots, is crucial.

All of these arguments have traction within certain parameters, and therein lies the problem:  While conservative think tanks are the bulwark against liberalism's effete, idea-free agenda, and although Obama's platform is at best McGovern on life-support, there's a broad swath of disengaged Americans who lap up the left's palaver as though it's nectar from the gods.  More critically, conservative outlets, be they think tanks, publications, talk radio, or the plethora available on the Internet, tend to be consumed by conservatives.  It's the rare liberal or conservative Democrat whose intellectual curiosity leads him to seriously consider the veracity of the conservative agenda.

That may be due to the rigorous demands conservatism exacts.  Indeed, unlike post-Kennedy liberalism, which embraces cultural anarchy, endorses international law, and gets squeamish about projecting American values, conservatism is a sturdy framework of ideas drawn from the Federalist Papers, a constructionist view of our Constitution, a nearly reverential respect for tradition, and an unflinching defense of moral absolutes.  Try applying those principles to issues facing your local school board, your city council, or any of a variety of civic, church, or volunteer groups.

The disquieting reality is that America has suffered a kind of cultural and civic bracket creep, a recalibration of values, and the result is that hard intellectual study that marshals evidence based on traditional values and principles is, to put it charitably, out of fashion.  More specifically, there is a glaring intellectual disconnect across all demographic groups, one that has been bridged by a culture of consensual superficiality, with the self-absorbed goal of eliminating duty and obligation, pain and suffering, and sacrifice and hard work.

In that tension-free world where high expectations are an oxymoron and government intrusion a redundancy, we can be assured that rewards will be provided for phantom efforts, self-esteem for the entitled guaranteed, and that the defense of our founding principles will be culturally proscribed. 

Conservatives must, of course, wage war against this sea of troubles, but it's discouraging when leadership at the national level is so clearly endangered.  Whether motivated by re-election fears or a failure to understand that traditional values are under fire, the vast majority of congressional Republicans are study in intellectual cowardice.  That leaves the heavy lifting to those of us with little power and less time, but for whom our conservative values are our very life blood.

Would that our Republican brethren--and conservative Democrats and Independents--felt the same way.

Although belated recognition of the obvious can be attributed to the resilience of political bias, we nonetheless welcome the Washington Post to the real world where progress in Iraq has been much in evidence for some time.  Their editorial chronicles strategic and tactical advances and even mentions the political progress the Malaki government is making, in particular, the broad public support it is receiving.  In light of that, the Post counsels, "it ought to mandate an already-overdue rethinking by the "this-war-is-lost" caucus in Washington, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)."

When the liberal lions at the Post petition a fellow liberal to rethink his policy of defeatism, it must be called progress.  In the left's view of Iraq, none of this was supposed to happen.  Well after the surge had produced measurable results, Senate Majority Leader Reid called our efforts a complete failure.  The fervor with which politicians issue broadsides is often inversely related to the truth because their political goals blind them to the facts.  The notion of hedging one's bet is simply not part of their doctrinaire approach to politics.

We'll refrain from the allure of schadenfreude as the Post becomes the first mainstream newspaper admits the obvious, except to marvel at the remarkable half-life of political bias.  But, beyond the political machinations that underwrite the left's defeatist attitude, there's another, more profound and revealing motivation.  If the U.S. is nominally successful in Iraq, that makes the prospect of military action against Iran more plausible, or at least less fraught with compelling political objections.

Although no one in a position of authority is seriously suggesting that a war-weary America start drafting plans for attacking Iran, economic sanctions aren't a credible solution because so many nations in Europe and elsewhere don't support them.  Indeed, they continue to sign trade agreements with Iran which take the sting out of the modest successes the U.S. and its real allies have achieved. 

But, since one of the by-products of the Iraq war is that the liberal establishment and its minions in the mainstream media have traumatized the entire nation by wearing down its resistance to war--already veneer-thin due to Vietnam--it's probably the case that even the threat of military action by a U.S.-led coalition is highly unlikely. 

Therefore, regardless of whether or not McCain wins the White House, the nation appears to be heading towards a Paulite, non-interventionist posture, not unlike the one struck by the proverbial Ostrich.  Of course, Iran's Ahmadinejad knows this and will calibrate his every move in light of it, exploiting America's weaknesses to his advantage. 

However, since the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency and various counter-intelligence agencies believe Iran will have enough nuclear material for a bomb within eighteen months, the only remaining question is what Israel might do, from a pre-emptitve strike perspective.  In any event, we can be sure that regardless of America's strategically supine position, Israel won't stand idly by as Iran acquires a weapon that could, in the words of Ahmadinejad himself, wipe them off the map.