Gary Hart, former Democratic candidate for President in 1984, is actually a rather good writer and this article is a perspective that I think is gaining currency.  I also think he may be right.  We are now ready for a liberal revival unlike any since the rise of FDR. 

As Hart asserts, 1932-1968 was the age of FDR and 1968-2008 is the Age of Reagan.  Now he claims the next three to four decades may be the Age of Obama, if Obama develops a comprehensive plan of reform which is now needed to combat too much time in conservative consolidation (at least by Hart's definition). 

I think America is close to attempting this and is well along the way choosing the wrong road, the Road to Serfdom as Hayek would maintain.  If Obama wins, Hayek loses and America will become a soft-Socialist state like those of Europe.  The Republican Party may have made many errors and may well deserve much of the recent public negativity, but it is still the bulwark against the real threats that are out there.  I think, sadly, we have few leaders able to articulate why Republicans are more right than wrong.  While McCain offers some needed corrections to the brand and may save the GOP from a complete apocalypse on Election Day, I believe the conservative movement is losing the war.  I believe the road to socialism is being travelled extensively by many. 

I also believe it will take something large and dangerous to wake us up to confront the new dangers of the world.  The dangers of intense global economic competition, WMD attacks facilitated through international proliferation black markets, the rise of possible peer military competitors like China, domestic entitlements programs that are unsustainable, and global climate change.  The new buzzwords are "engagement", "cooperation", and "reintroduction."  Unfortunately, this papers over some serious divergence of interests between us and others.  America is the only nation with the power to effectively compel certain states to remain "in line."  This may sound arrogant, but I defy anyone to tell me who else is prepared and/or capable.  If we do choose to become a self centered, government subsidized population that is deaf to the the truth of real danger, we will not be prepared to assume the leadership so many casually claim we must embrace.

The essence of conservatism is to be careful where we go, not to dive into the complete unknown with a willful blindness.  Conservatism does not mean no progress, it just means that we weigh our choices and realize tradition often has great wisdom, often greater than mere progress for progress sake. 

I fear the desire for equality of outcome and a superficial understanding of "peace" is the currency of the day and it if it wins, we will all eventually lose far more than we comprehend at this moment of transitory challenge.

Woe be unto us and to the world, for when the devils outside gnash their teeth, we may not be ready and will pay in copious amounts of blood for our naive embrace of empty "change."  We do need change, but it must be appropriately calibrated.  While I have used this quote before, it bears repeating.  So again from Henry Kissinger's magisterial dissertation, "A World Restored":

"But the attainment of peace is not as easy as the desire for it. Not for nothing is history associated with the figure of Nemesis, which defeats man by fulfilling his wishes in a different form or by answering his prayers too completely. Those ages which in retrospect seem most peaceful were least in search of peace. Those whose quest for it seems unending appear least able to achieve tranquillity. Whenever peace—conceived as the avoidance of war—has been the primary objective of a power or a group of powers, the international system has been at the mercy of the most ruthless member of the international community. Whenever the international order has acknowledged that certain principles could not be compromised even for the sake of peace, stability based on an equilibrium of forces was at least conceivable."

What principles does Obama believe cannot be forsaken even for peace?  If no answer is there, then we have embraced emptiness for our change and if that is the what the new historical cycle represents, it the cycle of our inexorable decline, not our rejuvenation.