It all started in 1999. The country was feeling the inexplicable, but inevitable optimism and excitement that accompanies the dawn of a new century. America was riding high in this pre-nine-eleven world, leading a new technology boom in the form of the internet and dot-com revolution. America was debating what to do with budget surpluses, and the stock market was reaching new highs. It during this time, that Karl Rove, a small time political strategist, set in motion his plan to capture the White House. The horse he was riding, George Bush, aside from the family name, was unremarkable a could have been any of hundreds of others. What set Karl Rove apart, was his brilliant mind.

Traditionally, approximately only 50% of the electorate actually bothers to vote in a Presidential election. Absence of any major issue or threat, there are quite a few of these people will reliably vote Democratic, and a quite a few that will reliably vote Republican. It is the few percentages in the center - the so called "swing" voters and independents that often make the difference between one side's candidate and the other. Standard practice was for politicians try to steer towards the center to attract these voters and win the election.

However, Karl Rove saw the problem differently. He was willing to concede these few voters in the center, if he could just mobilize the Republican minded, but non-voting block to get out and vote. In theory, if half of the non-voters would vote Democrat and half would vote Republican, there is as much as 25% of the country that would vote Republican, but don't bother to vote. So, he attempted to "rally the base", primarily by aligning himself with the Christian religious community. In exchange for leaders rallying their congregations, he was willing to promise "Faith Based Initiatives", greater access to the White House, and an anti-Abortion (and anti-stem cell research) stance. But Faith Based Initiatives was only one approach to motive voters. He also pushed Social Security reform (trying to win younger voters), the Prescription Drug Benefit (trying to win older voters), No Child Left Behind (trying to win parents), and Immigration Reform (trying to win the largest growing voting bloc, Hispanics). These initiatives were not only meant to bring George Bush to power, but also usher in a new era of a "permanent Republican majority".

It proved to be a risky, but successful maneuver, with Bush barely (some say not at all) beating out the Democrats and Al Gore. During good times, it's unusual for the party in power, with a popular President to have that party's candidate lose. But Rove did it and changed politics.

Flash forward to 2008. Bush's policies have largely proven a failure. The debt has doubled, America has been embroiled in two wars for six years, and economy is melting down. McCain is going up against Obama for the Presidency. McCain represents a more moderate, pragmatic Republican. He has shown a willingness to compromise, adapt, and change with the times. But not all in his party are content. An uprising, started by right wing talk shows, have actively and vocally campaigned against McCain during the primaries. These figures believe Bush's failures are not because the Republican Party has failed to evolve, rather because it swayed from Reagan era "traditional" conservative values such as deregulation, small government, and fiscally sound policies. In their eyes, moderates such as McCain are part of the problem, not the solution. Once its certain that McCain is the candidate, these wayward Republican voices reluctantly come around. However, during the campaign, they flex their muscles once more. McCain intuitively migrates towards the center, and wants to pick Lieberman, an Independent, as his running mate. However, citing the rebellion within his own party, and the success that Karl Rove had with Bush rallying the base - McCain decides to go with Sarah Palin, a nod to placate the more conservative elements of his party.

Following the thumpin' that McCain and Republicans receive at the hands of Obama and the Democrats, they real infighting begins. Does the GOP need new ideas and bridge the political divide within America, trying to prove they are the level-headed and rational party? Or should it retrench in Reagan-era traditional conservative values? Ultimately, the Retrenchment camp won out. Those brave souls, such as David Frum from Newsweek that did speak up about the GOP needing to adapt were quickly attacked by Rush Limbaugh and his gang of Retrenchers. We even saw some of those that stepped out of line having to come on Rush’s show to publically apologize. This fiery of ultra-Conservatism has only been made possible since Karl Rove showed that you can take the White House without having to be a moderate.

Rush and others have been successful rally the Republican base, getting them to come out tea parties and town hall meetings. What is striking about these events is not what is being said, but what is not. We see plenty of rhetoric on what Republicans don’t want (NO changes in healthcare, NO to socialism, NO to the stimulus bill, etc...), but is lacking is what the Republicans are for. This is not to say they don't have guiding principles - things like lower taxes and deregulation, but there is no action plan. No agenda. Nothing. We're not hearing what the Republicans would do if they were in power. How would they handle the economic crisis, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the like? This strategy of Nihilism is an interesting one - but the question is: will it work?

Rush has been successful in defining Republican success as a defeat for Obama, go so far as saying “he hopes Obama fails”. The obvious implication is that if Obama fails in, for example, his strategies in the Middle East, then America fails in those regions with the accompanying fallout and consequences. Being an obstructionist is certainly easier than trying find solutions to difficult issues. Therefore, they have defined a low bar for success and will likely find energy if Healthcare does become Obama's Waterloo, which could channeled back into recapture power. (Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., echoing this nihilistic strategy was quoted as saying, “If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.”) In addition, this nihilism has enforced a kind of political loyalty. It is impossible for even moderate Republicans to cross the aisle and horse trade with the Democrats on issues, if the Republican have no horses to trade. There is nothing in the Republican party platform that they want, only things they don't want. And so we have seen votes that have run largely along political lines. In addition, we've also see a split within the Democratic Party, between those more liberal, and those that are centrists, such as the fiscally conservative so called "Blue Dog" Democrats.

This strategy is not without danger. How long can the Republican party continue to rally their troops under a banner of negativism? The way they've rallied the base so far has been through fear and misinformation. There are no plans for "death panels", nor "socialism" or "socialized, government run heath care", and yet, that is the what the crowds are shouting at town hall meetings. Will the crowds continue to show, and the message resonate as the truth starts to leak out? Certainly mounting debt is a problem, but both Bush and Reagan doubled the US deficit - does the Republican party have the street cred to convince the country they are the party of fiscal discipline? If the economy, which is showing signs of life, recovers, and the Treasury coffers start to refill, will the debt continue to be enough to get people to come out and vote Republican?

The current plan seems to be slow, then stop Obama and the Democratic agenda. They may even go as far as to get back into power solely on a platform that they aren’t the Democrats. The question is the if the current strategy of nihilistic negativism has the staying power to do this. Assuming it does, then what? Limbaugh and the other talk show hosts that are currently leading strategy for GOP have spent their years attacking (or supporting) the policies that others have created. There is serious questions about their ability to formulate positions, policy, and strategy. Are there any other leaders who will step up? Unfortunately for the GOP, the next generation leadership seems to be self-destructing. People like Governor Bobby Jindal, of Louisiana, with his embarrassing performance rebutting Obama’s State of the Union speech, Sarah Palin with her abrupt departure as Governor of Alaska, and Governor of South Carolina’s Mark Stanford’s escapades with his Argentinean mistress. Compounding problems, the Retrenchment movement dictates dusting off old policies and using the same tired formulas of deregulation and tax cuts. Under Reagan these may have made sense, but with the top tax rate cut in half, and Wall Street's meltdown largely attributed to the deregulation of derivatives, do these policies still have legs?

Are we seeing a resurgence of the GOP, or are we witnessing the collapse of a movement? Only time will tell.