It is interesting -- if not slightly disturbing -- to hear how conservative pundits and talk show hosts are reacting to the McCain "surge". Most are truly apoplectic about the possibility that McCain might actually capture the Republican nomination and become the party's candidate in November. Many of the pundits -- Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, Laura Ingraham -- see McCain virtually as a Democrat in hiding. Anne Coulter actually is now on record as saying that she prefers Hillary as president over McCain. And the dean of conservative talk, Rush Limbaugh has said it would be the "end of the Republican party as we know it". It's almost as if John McCain were to win the nomination, conservatives would have to admit to themselves that Ronald Reagan really is gone.

News flash: it's 2008, not 1980 -- and the country has changed since Reagan was president. Reagan's brand of conservatism -- small government, low taxes, strong national defense -- do represent timeless American ideals. But they were a particularly good fit for the America of 1980. The 1970s had been a decade of insult and injury -- Vietnam, Watergate, oil shocks, rampant inflation -- the nation suffering from what Jimmy Carter aptly called a "malaise". What Ronald Reagan brought to the nation was partly a self-confidence borne of optimism, and partly a political agenda that sought to revitalize American innovation through freer markets. By reducing taxes and deregulating markets, he promoted individual responsibility and opportunity -- and unleashed a powerful force in the American economy that was the foundation for the economic boom we experienced in the 1990s. It is not hard to understand why conservatives so revere Reagan.

But that was then. Today we live in a different country and in a different world. Two key trends mark this shift:

First, the demographics of America have changed over the past 25 years. Immigration has dramatically shifted the politics of many states that were solid traditional "red" states. Take California as an example: Reagan won California in both 1980 and 1984 by better than 16% over Carter and Mondale, respectively. George Bush beat Michael Dukakis in 1988 by just 3.5%, however, and since then California has gone decisively for the Democrats in presidential contests. The increase in hispanic voters has been a major part of this trend -- but it also reflects an increasingly mobile electorate that is heavily influenced by the media and who reside predominantly in major urban centers like Los Angeles and San Francisco. And it isn't just California. Similar shifts have been taking place in Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan -- all once solid red states that now are on the edge of being consistently blue.

The change in demographics has been felt within the Republican party itself with a marked shift toward a more moderate "swing" base. This was proven out in exit polls from the Florida Republican primary on January 29. Only 27% of the Republican voters described themselves as being "very conservative". Those voters went for Mitt Romney 44% to 20%. At the same time, 34% described themselves as "somewhat conservative", and among those voters McCain and Romney tied, 32% to 32%. Finally, 38% of voters described themselves as "moderate conservatives". Among those voters, McCain beat Romney 40% to 22%. When you factor in that Giuliani got 15% of the popular vote in Florida and that a sizable majority of his support would have gone to McCain, the impact of the "moderate conservative" wing of the party is quite dramatic.

Which brings us to the second trend: the American electorate is more complex than ever before, and is less likely to vote on predictable partisan issues. While the base of each party remains doctrinaire, an increasingly large portion of both parties sits in the middle, focused on a wide variety of issues that create a complex voting pattern. People aren't just voting "their pocketbooks" anymore, but rather are also looking hard at national security, immigration, globalization and the environment in making their decision. One of the reasons that polling has been so inaccurate in recent elections is because the electorate is much more fluid -- making decisions often in the final hours or days. In this environment, the old standby "conservative" and "liberal" ques are much less determinant.

Of course, it hasn't helped that George Bush and the Republican Congress have given themselves a very black eye -- not just with their handling of the Iraq war, but also with their lack of fiscal discipline. The opinion of the country is that there isn't much difference between the two parties now on spending -- which leaves domestic security, foreign policy and the war on terror as the defining issue. On this the majority of the country is in the middle; they want the borders secured, they want success in Iraq, they want to be protected from attack here at home and they want US troops to come back -- but only when the job is finished. And this is why John McCain looks so good now to so many independents and "moderate" Republicans: he seems to understand now the need for border security, and he has the experience and credentials to be Commander in Chief from day one.

* * * * * *