Will they even make it to step one?

I might be pleasantly surprised and the Democrats might take the 12-step plan to recovery as advised by Emil Henry. But I very much doubt it. Maybe a few will. Excerpt:

4: This step requires brutal self-reflection, taking fearless inventory of all the actions that led to the Democrats’ electoral humiliation. Examples might include: an examination of why the lawmakers ignored abuses of power such as the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of conservatives; illegitimate executive orders; and bogus accounts of the Benghazi murders. Above all, Democrats must reflect on their role in the enactment of ObamaCare, with all the Congressional Budget Office gimmickry, legislative shenanigans and crony giveaways that got it passed.

5: Democrats should openly admit the exact nature of their wrongs. Begin with the spending binge that left the country $18 trillion in debt; finish up with how the Harry Reid -led Senate ran interference for the president, and for Democrats in tough re-election fights, by burying hundreds of bills passed in the House.

6: To shed their main defect—the tendency to perceive America as the problem—Democrats should spend some time on the road examining what alternatives to free-market capitalism and the rule of law look like. Mandatory stops include the Middle East, where real wars on women are waged, and the eurozone, where economic stagnation from years of tax-and-spend liberalism is on ample display. Also on the itinerary: Cuba, Venezuela and, sadly, too many other places to mention, where central control or its first cousin, socialism, produces a certain kind of income equality—across-the-board misery.

Step 11 is also worth emphasizing:

This step calls on Democrats to meditate and pray for the wisdom to internalize these steps and the strength to remain on a path of recovery. The lawmakers should look for inspiration in the example of others who found the strength to shed their former liberal compulsions: Ronald Reagan, Condoleezza Rice , Rudy Giuliani and Phil Gramm.

Ideological purity versus principled victory

I like Ted Cruz, and I'm sure I would vote exactly the same as he does in the Senate. But this article presents facts and many quotes from Reagan to show exactly where his rhetoric is reality-challenged. His blind spot is shared by many in the conservative movement whom I greatly respect and admire, including Rush Limbaugh. Excerpt:

Cruz is fond of contrasting his stance with those of “Washington consultants” who allegedly say that “standing for principle is inconsistent with winning elections.” He says that there are only two approaches available to conservatives, theirs or his. But this is a false dichotomy.

Reagan knew that brazenly drawing a line in the sand for the American people was the worst way to combat the liberal establishment. He explained to the readers of National Review that Goldwater lost in 1964 because Democrats had portrayed conservatives as advocating “a radical departure from the status quo.” “Time now for the soft sell,” he said, “to prove our radicalism was an optical illusion.”

Reagan also knew that ideological purity is the enemy of principled victory. In 1967, speaking to a conservative grassroots group, then-governor Reagan set out his vision for the GOP:

"We cannot offer [to individualists] a narrow sectarian party in which all must swear allegiance to prescribed commandments. Such a party can be highly disciplined, but it does not win elections. This kind of party soon disappears in a blaze of glorious defeat, and it never puts into practice its basic tenets, no matter how noble they may be."

Reagan knew that victory can come only by assembling a coalition of people, not all of whom will agree on every topic.

"Those voices don't speak for the rest of us"

Absolutely not. Hat tip to Roger.

Thanks for reading my blog. For current commentary and what-not, visit the Est Quod Est homepage

I can't watch this, maybe you can

I got an announcement regarding this interview with a friend of mine, Paul Kengor, in an email today, but I'm busy at the time of broadcast. Maybe one o' you can check it out. Should be a great interview, better than whatever schlock is on TV at the time.

* * * * *
If you can’t attend the Reagan town hall forum tonight featuring renowned Reagan biographer Paul Kengor interviewing Reagan’s trusted CIA operative Herb Meyer, watch it live at this link. You can connect as early as 6:45 p.m. EST. You'll witness a fascinatin gdiscussion about Reagan’s decisive Cold War policy summarized in the 40th President’s own words as “We win, they lose.” Until Reagan, America's policy toward the Soviets was détente, which meant a policy of managing, not winning, the Cold War. The CIA was a major player in Reagan's victory strategy.

Email your questions for Herb Meyer

If you have a question you'd like Herb Meyer to address during the Q&Asession, please click on this link and send it to us.

---

Meyer, the CIA operative, and Kengor promise to be an intriguing once-in-a-lifetime combination.

An economist and Soviet specialist, Meyer was handpicked by CIA director Bill Casey to serve as his aide. Reagan knew in his gut and by principle what few others knew: The Soviet Union was weak and could be pushed to the brink of collapse. In a striking November 1983 memo, Meyer forecast, correctly, what Reagan had been hoping and working toward: The Soviet Union was entering a "terminal phase." "If the present trend continues," predicted Meyer, "we're going to win the Cold War." In his book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism, Kengor writes, "That November, Reagan and his contingent of underminers got an exciting glimpse of Soviet desperation, courtesy of Herb Meyer. Meyer was special assistant to Bill Casey and vice chair of the National Intelligence Council, a prestigious seat at the CIA, where he observed the full brunt of Reagan strategy. That strategy, said Meyer, citing the tandem of Reagan and Casey, was "very dangerous, very gutsy."

Meyer was a central player in the economic-warfare "take-down" strategy to undermine the Soviet Union. He remains a top analyst on Russia, energy policy, and defense and foreign affairs.

---

Paul Kengor, one of the top Reagan biographers

Speaking of Kengor's book God and Ronald Reagan, Michael Reagan said, "Finally, a book that not only focuses on my dad's faith but gets it right." Moreover, endorsing The Crusader, Herb Meyer said, "In one beautifully written volume Paul Kengor got the whole story--complete, accurate, and never-before-reported details about how Ronald Reagan succeeded than any other Cold War historian. This is far and away the best book about how President Reagan fought and won the Cold War. Centuries from now, The Crusader will be read by anyone who wants to know how the Cold War really
ended."

Not only does Kengor know Reagan well, he does an engaging job conducting live interviews with those who knew the 40th president personally. If you missed our two previous Ronald Reagan Lectures, featuring Michael Reagan and Edwin Meese, you missed remarkable evenings. Don’t miss this year, watch via the web!