The punditocracy of the mainstream media is busy punditating on how the Presidential election effects conservatism and who will lead conservatives, Republicans or both, around, through or out of the political wilderness.

The first train of thought is that conservatism is dead as a viable political doctrine.  This is seemingly based on a Presidential election that had little to do with conservatism, not to be confused with politicians calling themselves conservatives when only their (occasional) rhetoric, certainly not their actions, had any known relationship to conservatism.

More important than how candidates self-identified themselves is how voters self-identified themselves. 

As columnist Tony Blankley puts it, “I can only hope that Obama and his team assume that his 53-46 percent win at a moment of calamitous economic news and a vastly unpopular president constituted a rejection of every non-leftist impulse in the public.  It is revealing that the exit polling disclosed that the public self-identified itself as 44 percent moderate, 34 percent conservative and 22 percent liberal, which was statistically identical (45-34-21) to the numbers after Bush’s 2004 victory.  Moreover, the fact that 20 percent of self-identified conservatives voted for Obama – or 6.8 percent of the electorate --  shows that if McCain had held all the self-identified conservatives, he would have won the popular vote.”

That simple, direct analysis is as valid as any, including those which take far more words and torture the statistics until they scream to be returned to the computers.  It is as valid as the anecdotes of this election or that, regarding disappeared candidates and long since dead presidents.

The election is done, over, finished.  And after a week, a month, a year, even, we daresay that few conservatives, even those who for personal reasons either voted for Obama or did not vote, are or will be busily exchanging their conservative identification cards for liberal ones.  The only “conservatives” who awoke on November 5 saying Oh Yes, Big Government, that’s the answer are those seeking personal fortune, favor or Georgetown cocktail party invitations.

A majority of voters voted for change.  That is a given.  But the underlying backdrop and the dynamics of the vote would seem far more akin to  “throw the bums out” change than  “realignment” change.  Thus, voters pulled the levers for a fuzzy, amorphous, ill-defined change for the sake of that change itself.

President-elect Obama rode the fuzz pedal into the floor in order to win the votes of moderates, who have become the electoral referees of whether conservative or liberal philosophies will dominate the political landscape and for how long.  He did it deftly and brilliantly, amply aided by more money than has ever been raised or spent.

Nonetheless, the President-elect has yet governed not one day.  Not one.  The governing that a liberal President, an ultra-liberal House of Representatives and a liberal Senate must do, in a center-right country, straight out of the January 20 Inauguration gala box, will be the most daunting that most of us have seen in our lifetimes.

It is thus not really all that smart for writers, no matter their wishful thinking, to be putting their names to obituaries for conservatism.

It is equally imprudent for those “thinkers,” most notably New York Times columnist David Brooks, who crow for “reform.”

Conservatism is based on a set of principles – limited government, low taxes, strong defense, free markets, moral and ethical standards, individual responsibility – all much discussed, all rarely implemented.  As best we can tell, those who want to “reform” conservatism actually want liberalism (in at least some areas), which, it would seem fairly obvious, would no long resemble conservatism.

If the discussion is limited to the practical tasks of obtaining conservative policies (or conversely demonstrating the disaster of liberal ones) and winning elections, we would simply suggest that some remedial courses in principles and communications might aid those politicians who wish to parade under the conservative banner, whether they still hold office or seek it.

That brings us to the final subject of current breathless public speculation:  Who, omigod who, will lead conservatives and/or Republicans against the mighty liberal onslaught? In looking for a “leader,” attention this week has turned to the Republican Governor’s Conference and the list of luminaries parading there.

We would humbly suggest that most rank-and-file conservatives (and more than a few “moderates”) are desperately seeking thoughtful, articulate, dedicated followers of conservative principle.  Find those true followers, and from them legitimate leadership will emerge.