There once was a time when the word Conservative meant more or less what it sounds like, i.e. the dictionary description: moderate, tending toward traditional ways, avoiding extremes… One would often think of a bunch of old men at a gentleman’s club pondering the grand issues of the day while sucking down gin and tonics.

In the United States, the conservative position is generally represented by the Republican Party. The Republicans over the years have had a number of great leaders: Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Ike Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan just to name a few. They have also had their share of intellectual heavyweights. One of my favorite Republican minds of the last 30 years or so was William F. Buckley. Buckley was supremely intelligent and could debate virtually any issue with anybody. He would never resort to low blows or name calling to make a good point. He had a very humorous dry wit about him.

Today in the United States, the Conservative position is represented by such people as John Boehner, Lindsay Graham, Eric Cantor, the bombastic Rush Limbaugh, the grammatically challenged Sarah Palin (whose foreign policy credentials include being able to see Russia from her back porch), the clownish Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, the ultra warm and fuzzy Ann Coulter (was that sarcasm?) and the rest of the Fox News/ Republican Party propaganda machine. Many of today’s Republicans seem more radical than conservative. The sunny optimism of Ronald Reagan seems to have been replaced in many cases by fear, resentment, and name calling.

The most recent “conservative” president was George W. Bush. Bush was elected in 2000 in one of the closest presidential elections in US history. In fact, the election was so close that it could not be decided based on votes alone, and ended up being decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. I will not get into whether Bush’s election was legitimate or not, GWB did become president after all.

Bush’s opponent in 2000 was none other than inventor of the Internet and promoter of modern global warming theory Albert Gore. If Al Gore had even been able to win his own home state of Tennessee (which to his discredit he failed to do), one wonders if we might have been spared some of the more notable achievements of the Bush presidency such as 911, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the prison at Guantanamo Bay, waterboarding, the Patriot Act, unwarranted wiretapping in the US, and the financial meltdown of late 2008, just to name a few. On the campaign trail, Gore appeared wooden, robotic and uncomfortable in his own skin. He was apparently also uncomfortable with his connection to the still very popular Bill Clinton, due primarily to the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Had Gore deployed Clinton during the 2000 campaign it is likely it would have put him over the top. Again, to his discredit, he failed to do this. During the 8 years of peace and prosperity of the Clinton administration the government was running substantial surpluses and beginning to slowly pay down the huge national debt. America’s image in the world was largely, though not universally, positive. The economy prospered. I always felt that Gore lost the election more than Bush won it. Gore has nobody but himself to blame for the loss.

During Bush’s time in power, peace turned to war, federal surpluses turned into giant deficits due to a reckless tax cut and the staggering cost of two wars, international treaties were torn up (the 1972 ABM treaty, the Geneva Convention on Treatment of Prisoners), global alliances were shaken, and America was often seen to pursue an “America First” type of foreign policy. “Either you’re with us, or you’re with the Terrorists” Bush said famously. America’s image in the world suffered dramatically during the Bush years.

Domestically, through Bush political strategist Karl C. Rove’s calculus of divide and conquer, the American electorate was sliced and diced with one group pitted against the other, red states vs. blue states, pro-life vs. pro-choice, anti gay marriage vs. pro gay marriage, pro gun vs. anti gun, religious vs. non religious, anti-immigration vs. pro-immigration and so on.

This slice and dice process has resulted in Americans becoming more divided at home than ever. Some commentators have even gone so far as describing things as a state of near civil war. American civil discourse is now at an all-time low. People no longer simply disagree on issues, they often call the other side names: “communist, socialist, nazi, fascist, traitor, terrorist”… The list goes on. One of the worst recent examples I can recall is during the 2008 primaries, when right wing commentator Ann Coulter called John Edwards “a faggot”. Now I am no big fan of John Edwards. I always found him to be a bit of a lightweight on many issues, but his recent time in the news ought to convince most of us that he is not a homosexual. In any case, this does not matter to Ann, as she had gotten more media attention, and slagged one of her many ideological opponents. Ann is not known for the subtlety of her arguments.

Another disturbing trend among many of today’s Republicans is the apparent unwillingness to work with the Democrats on virtually any issue. The party seems to want to ensure that Barack Obama does not have any substantive legislative victories. Rush Limbaugh’s statement that he wanted Obama to fail seems to perfectly illustrate this. The Republican performance on the health care file is another fine example. After all the Democratic outreach on healthcare this year, only one Republican senator, Olympia Snowe of Maine, would be associated with the even the relatively lightweight bill put forward by Max Baucus of Montana earlier this fall. The new bill, being pushed by Senator Harry Reid, which will likely include some sort of public option, was quickly rebuffed even by the lone Republican Snowe as being “a major disappointment”. It would seem that the Republicans do not actually want to cooperate with the democrats on this issue at all, and likely on any other issue. So much for bipartisan cooperation. Some commentators have described today’s Republicans as “The Party of No”. The description does not seem inaccurate.

The Republican party is losing ground among many important parts of the electorate: women, immigrants, the young, educated urban types, and most importantly, independent voters. Today’s dominant Republican policies, themes and voices seem designed to appeal primarily to the firmly committed partisan base. To win elections, a party must go beyond their base and appeal to moderate independents who have no firm party affiliation. The current Republican message is scaring away the independent voters the party needs the most.

The number of people describing themselves as Republicans is now at an all-time low. Moderate voices are being pushed out of the party in favor of more strident and radical voices. Arlen Spector is one example of a moderate long time Republican who recently left the party. Rather than get squeezed out in a primary fight, the veteran senator decided to jump ship to the Democrats. This process has been playing itself out in many electoral districts across the country.

A so-called Listening Tour led by Jeb Bush and several other prominent Republicans earlier this year, designed to refocus and rebrand the party quickly fizzled out. The formerly conservative party is now moving further and further to the right and is often perceived as intensely pro-war, intolerant of minorities and unwelcoming to immigrants. Republican gatherings are notable for the lack of diversity one typically sees. Michael Steele and Bobby Jindal notwithstanding, the crowds appear to be almost universally white. The future of the US is multiracial and multi-faith, not white Christians only. We are now in the 21st century, not 1950s John Birch America.

Todays Republicans appear to be more radical than conservative. Where is today’s Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower or Ronald Reagan, or William F. Buckley? Where are the inspiring Republican leaders of tomorrow? We continue to wait. Meanwhile the party continues to shift to the radical right of the tea party movement.

Here’s looking forward to a day when the Republican Party can moderate some of its more extreme message in a way that will broaden its appeal beyond the current narrow focus and help them win elections without demonizing their opponents and scaring people senseless. Despite a few recent successes in the Special Elections of November 2009, the current Republican course looks like a train headed to nowhe