ConservativeHome’s Tim Montgomerie has written a sensible piece with many good points; your humble Blog Goliard must admit that there may be some lessons to learn from Britain’s Tories after all, comments in the post immediately below notwithstanding. But I still bristle at two aspects of the Cameron leadership.

1) “Modernization”. Many of those who call for conservatism to “modernize” don’t go very far in defining that term. They’ll sometimes go on about 20th-century-this versus 21st-century-that, but that’s meaningless blather—the fact that the giant odometer rolled over recently isn’t an argument for or against anything.

Once again, the sense I get is that this “modernization” mainly consists of asking “what is the modern thing to do?” and then declaring “let’s do that!” But if conservatism means anything, surely it’s standing against the clueless chasing after what is trendy and new, and all other manifestations of presentism.

2) Public Relations. I’m still convinced that hiring a PR person as national leader holds every promise of being an even worse choice than hiring an MBA (W.) or an engineer (Hoover, Carter). The profile of that job’s professional strengths and occupational hazards may match up well with the business of campaigning…but with wise, effective, and far-seeing governance? Color me dubious.

In responding to David Brooks’ disappointingly shallow column in the New York Times, Yuval Levin gets it exactly right:

As I see it, the basic idea is to apply conservative principles and ingenuity to a broader range of problems than we have been used to thinking about—to think in concrete policy terms about the worries of American families, and offer concrete conservative proposals for reforming our governing institutions. These need to be extensions of conservative successes in the past, like tax and welfare reform: applications of our basic view of the world to the problems of the day. This kind of reformism is the conservative tradition, not a substitute for it.

This sits a lot better with your humble Blog Goliard than Brooks’ argument, which seem to be that conservative principles have somehow gone past their sell-by date, and need to be “modernized”…in the manner of (God help us) David Cameron.

I shall let Peter Hitchens describe what the Cameron ascendancy looked like:

The Tory Party had been put into receivership. Its supposed owners - those who voted for it and supported it - had lost control over it.

The ‘Centre-Left’ establishment, Britain’s permanent government of media types, politicised moneybags and their approved pundits, had taken over, and their task was to make it as unconservative as possible, as quickly as possible.

Cameron’s tenure as Tory leader should serve as a cautionary tale of what happens when you let PR people take the helm: you get the sort of “modernization” which asks, in response to any issue, not “what is the best solution?” but “what is the most modern thing to do?” It should go without saying that such clueless chasing after what is trendy and new is unseemly for conservatives…and would be even if we weren’t bad at it. (Which we are, in the manner of a superannuated youth minister making painful attempts to be “relevant” and connect with the youngsters.)

Along with the many reasons that “modernizing” and “moving with the times” is a bad idea generally, it is particularly unwise for the Right because, for a very long time in so very many areas, the movement of the times has been in a Leftward direction. To be on the Right is to—as as wise man once said—stand athwart history, yelling Stop. And that struggle takes place within as well as without the Republican Party—and within many other organizations that may prove amenable to conservatism, but are also forever susceptible to the working of O’Sullivan’s First Law: “All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing.”

I also pick up a whiff of backwards PR thinking in Brooks’ call to “appeal more to Hispanics, independents, and younger voters.” Maybe he simply means that we need to find new and better ways to communicate what we believe to these people, and that of course is fine and much needed. I fear, however, that he actually means we need to first try and figure out what these people believe (presuming, as liberals do, that all members of a group like “Hispanics” think alike), and then change our principles accordingly.

That does not comport well with your humble Blog Goliard’s understanding of what principles are, and are for.

Your humble Blog Goliard did some late-night commenting last night over on the AmSpec blog, discussing McCain’s grace in defeat and the matter of courtesy to the new President.

Regarding the former, was that grace in defeat a bit too eager? I was glad to see Lisa Schiffren mention some very interesting remarks from the Fox News reporter on hand in Phoenix, who almost seemed to be hinting that McCain had come to see it as his duty to lose this one.

Isn’t such an inclination a close cousin of McCain’s famous bipartisan impulse? Isn’t this oddly common among Republicans in general (well, the ones who have been in D.C. for years anyhow), especially compared to Democrats? Or is it just partisan blinders that create this view?

To expand on the latter point as well—this dignity and honor thing is an issue I’m torn on. I want Republicans to play more fairly than their opponents, to be more gracious in defeat, to do more to uphold the civic compact whereby the winner is recognized promptly and without quibble, and allowed to govern. But I don’t want them to be chumps, whose motto and objective is “lose with dignity”, either.

If it were entirely up to me, for instance, well-qualified Supreme Court nominees would have expeditious and courteous hearings, and be confirmed with near-unanimity in the Senate, under both Democratic and Republican administrations. But it takes two parties to maintain such a tradition; and one of them has now spent 13 of the last 21 years tearing it apart.

It is now up to Senator McConnell and his troops to decide whether they return to their practice from the Clinton years (Ginsburg, ACLU lawyer and feminist activist, confirmed 96-3), or begin to treat Democratic nominees in the manner that Bork and successive Republican nominees were (Alito, Federalist Society member with bland non-activist career, confirmed 58-42).

The angel on one shoulder argues that two wrongs still do not make a right, and that Senate Republicans should conduct themselves with dignity, honor, and due respect for Obama’s mandate. The devil on the other shoulder calls this suicide—believing that it would be a temporary, cosmetic papering-over of the civility problem, rather than a step towards real solution; and that when the shoe was on the other foot, the Republican dove of peace would again be replaced by a Democratic mailed fist…amid cackling over how stupid and weak and foolish the Republicans had proven to be, once more.

I, for one, welcome our new Obamaite overlords.

To the jubilant Kool-Aid drinkers out there: Congratulations, but remember, “A change in rulers is the joy of fools.”

To those of us who voted otherwise: Worry, yes, but do not despair. Never despair.

Memo to fellow McCain supporters: If our guy pulls this thing out, we need to be locked and loaded with our electoral vote vs. popular vote arguments.

It seems quite elementary to your humble Blog Goliard; yet the argument isn’t made effectively enough, often enough. So here are two points that need to be hammered home.

1) You don’t change the rules after the election has been held. Period.

2) One big reason behind point #1 (though hardly the only reason) is that the rules affect the strategy. John McCain was told that 270 electoral votes would win, regardless of the nationwide popular vote; and so he campaigned accordingly. (As did Obama.) He would have campaigned quite differently—practically taking up residence in California, for instance—if the popular vote majority was all that counted.

The way to drive home point #2 is to compare it to a baseball game. Going in, you, the manager, are told that the most runs wins. You strategize accordingly, and your team finishes with 2 runs on 3 hits. The opposition earns 1 run on 6 hits…and then files a protest with the league, claiming that awarding you a victory is completely unfair. After all, they were twice as successful at the plate as you were, if you’re counting the hits. And why wouldn’t you—the hits are up there on the scoreboard in big numbers alongside the runs for a reason, right?

Except that’s not what you had your team playing for. If it had been, you wouldn’t have tried that squeeze play in the fourth, or called for any other bunts either…wouldn’t have risked stealing second base in the sixth, which shortened the inning when you got caught…would have intentionally walked the other guy’s best hitters every single time, even if meant walking in the go-ahead run in the eighth…you get the picture.

This argument won’t convince Democrats desperate to see Obama win, of course; but one could make the additional point that they’ve had eight years to address what some of them called a grave injustice back in 2000, and I haven’t seen a serious push to amend the Constitution since then. (Of course, being Lefties, they have taken a stab or two at circumventing the Constitution…)

It has been encouraging to see the leaking and finger-pointing and other signs of collapsing morale in the McCain camp recede this week; and many commenters, from the NRO gang to the irrepressible Rush Limbaugh, seem to be of good cheer. Your humble Blog Goliard has been feeling less like he is just grasping at straws in identifying a McCain path to victory.

Though I also, somewhat perversely, continue to take some comfort from the fact that so many folks continue to see this one as being in the bag. (Have you seen McCain’s Intrade odds lately?) This is a function of both past experience and pure cussedness.

When opinion is running 2-1 or 3-1 in favor of a certain outcome, I usually feel secure placing my bet with the 2 or 3. But when it gets to 8-1 or 9-1, I’m moved to carefully investigate the thinking behind the minority…and if it is not obviously deranged or pure wishful thinking, I then plump for the 1. You’d be surprised how often this “follow the crowd but buck the stampede” approach pays off.

That said, all I know for sure about Tuesday is that: a) it is more likely than not that Obama will win, and b) beyond that, nobody really knows anything.

We soon shall.