But I'd rephrase it more simply and a little differently:

Reaganism is dead – right now – because it doesn't offer solutions to our current problems.

With Dems in charge across the board (depending on how you want to categorize the SCOTUS), the very first thing that leadership should do is strengthen the ethical rules governing the administration and Congress as much as possible. Power always corrupts on all levels, and the easiest thing in the world to bring down the Dems in 4 to 8 years is a series of corruption scandals. I view this as perhaps step 1 before anything else.

Now, going more towards the post and “the meaning of the election”, I too am not sure this is truly an abandonment of Reaganism, but there's more to it than a repudiation of the last administration. The repudiation wasn't ideological (except perhaps in some of the demonization politics) but largely practical. A lot of the ideas tried over the last 8 years simply didn't have the desired outcome.

People who started the administration without health care ended it without health care. We made almost no progress on a federal level on alternative energies or the environment. Fighting climate change has occurred in fits at best. And more important than all probably, the real income of most Americans stagnated with clear prospects for decline in the next year. People want these real issues to be solved and most don't care how it's done.

Obama held out hope that something really would happen, and so a bunch of people went his way. But if a Reagan had held out a completely different method of solving these problems with the inspirational message he frequently had, people would have voted for him as well.

Thanks for asking.

My basic premise is that “modern conservatism” sees government as a fundamental bogey man rather than a legitimate player. Reagan once said, “Government isn't the solution to the problem, government is the problem.” In his day government certainly was a problem. But since then the idea has metastacized into the notion that government should be reduced to the size where you could drown it in a bathtub (to paraphrase Grover Norquist). I believe more people are coming to reject that idea as well, because they have seen how dysfunctional an unregulated free market can be. Lead in toys, salmonella in spinach, mad cows, ecological catastrophes represented by so superfund sites that never should have been… the free market doesn't deal with those things very well. Over time the free market also has a tendency to develop monopolies. In fact, one could effectively argue that the recognition of that back in the early 20th century (and championed by unlikely allies such as Teddy Roosevelt and Woody Wilson) helped to redefine both conservatism and liberalism — or at least establish a different dynamic (which is really the same thing).

To me, the best state of affairs is achieved when government serves as balance for the free market, and vice versa, in such a way that neither dominates the other. IMO, the government is an essential counter force to prevent market forces from ossifying, and keep them dynamic. The traditional liberal notion is that the government should be intrusively ubiquitous to the point where they control, support, or even operate industry. That's socialism, and I reject that. But I also reject the modern conservative notion that government should simply get out of the way. Too often that metamorphoses into a situation where industry controls, supports, or even operates government. In fact, I'd say that state of affairs is all but guaranteed if government gets too small and/or incompetent. We've seen shades of that in the Bush administration, but many Latin American countries provide much clearer examples. In contrast, I think the proper role of government is to stimulate, not maintain, and regulate not obstruct: to keep markets churning and preventing excesses by way of entrenchment or by way of narrow disregard for their externalities. It seems so very clear to me. But I can't say either party has embraced the concept. And thus it seems to me a redefinition of one or the other party platforms is in order — perhaps even inevitable. And in fact, on the basis of some of the things Obama has said, and the kinds of people he has gathered around him, I think he understands that. I truly don't believe he's “liberal” in the “traditional” sense (which is really to say in the current, or “modern” sense). To loosely borrow terminology from Kurt Vonnegut used to describe his character Billy Pilgrim in the novel “Slaughterhouse 5″, Obama is very much “unstuck”. He is unstuck genetically, culturally, intellectually, and hopefully temperamentally. He has the makings to be a truly transformative figure. Whether or not he proves to be one remains to be seen. But to be one he can't be unstuck in time (like the original Billy Pilgrim). He has to understand (unlike Bush) that he cannot create a new reality out of wholecloth. He can only nudge it, a little at a time.

And by the way, that goes for any and all things besides just “economics” in its classical definition. To me everything is transactional — be it monetary, racial, cultural, class dynamics, whatever. Even the interaction between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome is transactional. But I believe that in each and every one of those facets there exists a sweet spot somewhere in between the extremes where things work best. And I believe that Obama appreciates that. And fortunately, I also believe he possesses a far more prodigious intellect than I do. And that will be necessary. Because in order for him to succeed he will have to withstand the slings and arrows from both sides. It seems to me that both liberals and conservatives seem to be projecting into him that which they want to see on the basis of what their self interests are, not that which is. I hope that which is proves to be enough to withstand it.

That has also been true about the GOP in Washington for a long, long time. That is one reason much of the public saw little value in it. Who cares about Dems Lite (and a dysfunctional party, too), when there is the real thing at hand?

But we are seeing all kinds of delusion, still, being repeated here — and likely will see much of it until the kids get over the giddiness and swooning.

And we haven't been ruled by the Right (much less the mythical Far Right) for three decades. The latter is simply a case of regressivity (thinking the failed earlier decades were wonderful, based on models like the bloated UAW and Carefully Managed Big Paternalistic Corporations Providing Lifetime Employment And Sharing In Cradle-To-Grave Entiitlement-Based Security) and persistence (what dinosaurs!) of hatred of Reagan. To this day you can hear such things on the frequently illogical (it is leftist, after all) Thom Hartmann Program on the radio. (“… Then _along_came_Rrrrrrrrrrrrreagan! …”)

[snicker]

Meanwhile, I hope Obama does remain sane — for example, may he not flirt with idiocy and that doofus wanting us to “correct” our “food policy.”

Small goverment, like the bailout of Wall Street? Conservative, McCain?

When will you ever learn?

* * *

Obviously Americans have spoken in large numbers — saying [I'll keep it clean] “NO to the GOP.”

We have our first black President. “Touchdown! The Eagle has landed.”

Dems didn't get all their dreams fulfilled (no sixty-plus seats in the Senate), but they'll settle for doing better than they have in ten or more years. As I correctly said before, Shaun Mullen was wrong; Obama had coattails (this was not solely, though it was mainly, a negative vote against the GOP).

The media and lefty talk radio (cousins) are largely doing okay, not being too overly emotional or gushing (would that some on here would grow up, as well). Perhaps they're as surprised as the rest of us at the extent of the no-confidence vote on the Republicans and the size of the Dems' victory.

Obama apparently isn't wasting time forming a Cabinet. He could, should he wish, take a holiday between now and January, but he's not doing that. Normally there's a delay before getting started forming a Cabinet and making plans for post-inaugural acts. Not this time.

Perhaps I should have said “unless” instead of “until”. I don't know that it will be a failure, I was just pointing out that it is the direction we have chosen; we will
continue in that direction until or unless it doesn't work for us anymore.

Replace the term liberal with competent and you are dead on. The dems are going to pull us out of a crap war, balance the budget, and work on making more money for americans despite higher taxes by having a strong economy, hopefully without a major financial blowout from industry leaders every few years. Anyone think it mere coincidence we took on an anti-regulation administration then bounced from MCI Worldcomm -> Enron -> Banking meltdowns, with all attendant secondary repercussions, under it?

Clinton as a right-winger? Man, you really have to be part of the far, far left to make that statement.

p.s. – Carter fits into your window as well. A well known Bircher if there ever was one.

I don't believe that for a second.

Polls are pretty clear. The country has embraced liberal visions of health care reform, foreign policy (withdrawal from Iraq being the main plank), and economic management with more regulation and accountability.

I appreciate that Republicans and centrists are trying to box in Obama, but hopefully it won't work.

The Republicans, on the other hand, have only Evangelical Christians and gun owners as voting blocs, both of which get pummeled regularly
from multiple sides. As it is, It will exceedingly difficult for any Republican to win nationwide office unless something extraordinary happens to change the dynamics.

The change from a right-of-center to a left-of-center government is a cyclical thing generally, so I think it is disingenuous to say that Obama is not “liberal”. Rather,
it seems more honest to say that the nation has chosen to go in a more “liberal” direction, and it will continue to do so until this direction proves to be a failure.
(Witness Reagan-Bush I – Clinton – Bush II- Obama….) This particular “liberal” revolution, and I agree that liberalism for many is situational, will probably last longer due to the solidification of the Democratic voting blocs, so I also agree that the Reagan Revolution is dead, for now. Eight years from now, who knows?

Always look on the bright side. Barack Obama's victory almost certainly means that neither Hillary Clinton nor Al Gore will ever be president of the United States.

Reaganism was complex . . . and I think many of its strands have actually been reinforced by this election.
(I am conservative and liked Reagan, but . . . growing up a working-class punk whom wealthy conservatives tended to release their hounds on . . . you will understand I was never a supporter of social conservatism).

To be honest: I am very surprised at the numbers of African-Americans voting against gay marriage in CA . . . ESPECIALLY after Jerry Brown worded this as a vote against equality rights.

An ironic election in many respects. Liberating for some . . . and a dark day for others.

Obama has run a campaign that has said what I have wanted a politician to say for so many years. A moderate voice, and one that appears to be less beholden to special interests than any I can remember. Also one who seems to understand that in the real world actions have consequences, you can't just apply American Exceptionalism to any moral quandry and expect things to work out and to hold your head up as the greatest country in the world. No doubt I'm in for some disappointment over the next 4/8 years, but it beats the certain disaster that would have come with a GOP victory.

I AM heartened that the country seemed to reject the basest of campaign tactics offered by the GOP and that voters seem to long for more of a unified country.