The sound heard across America on November 4th was not Sarah Palin shattering the glass ceiling, it was the Republican party falling on its face.  The severity of the injury is easily seen:

• A Democrat with Obama's credentials beat a Republican with McCain's credentials in a landslide.  Obama held a 6% lead in the popular vote and had double the Electoral College votes.
  
• In the last two elections, Republicans have gone from a majority to a near-toothless minority in the Senate.
• In the House, Republicans have lost 50 or more seats in the last two elections.
• Among state governors, 29 are now Democrats.
• Obama disparaged rural Pennsylvanians and Murtha piggybacked his own insults onto this, yet Murtha easily won reelection.
• Foul-mouthed comedian Al Franken forced a run-off with an incumbent Republican Senator.
  

Although the Republican Party will survive, there is no doubt that these are the darkest of times.  Multiple reasons (excuses?) for this election disaster have been posited:

• The unpopularity of the President and Congress
• The unpopularity of the war in Iraq
  
• A poorly run campaign
• The lack of appeal of the candidates
• The economic crisis
• Mainstream media bias
  

These issues contributed to the loss, no doubt.  However, it would be delusional to think that these situational factors are the sole cause for the defeat of an organization that is otherwise sound.  The Republican Party has lost its effectiveness as the spokesperson for the conservative perspective in American politics.  To regain its stature, the party should address three areas of concern: accountability, platform, and campaign.

Accountability
In his concession speech, Senator McCain personally accepted responsibility for his defeat.  More than a noble gesture, this should serve as a role model for Republican leadership.  This is difficult for politicians to grasp, whose survival instincts cause them to reflexively avoid responsibility.  As evidence, voters have come to believe that the way to tell if a politician is lying is that his lips are moving.

Because they tout values, Republicans are especially prone to criticism for hypocrisy when they stray.  Republicans cannot afford to be the "do as I say, not as I do" party.  Harm has been done to the conservative message by the likes of Ted Stevens, Scooter Libby, and George Ryan (criminal convictions); Newt Gingrich (affair); Vito Fosella (drinking and sex scandal); and David Vitter, Mark Foley, and Larry Craig (sex scandals).  Such shenanigans should be left to Democrats like William "Cold Cash" Jefferson, John "Abscam" Murtha, Bill "Slick Willy" Clinton, Gary "Rock Creek Park" Condit, Chris "Sweetheart Deal" Dodd, Barney "Prostitution Ring" Frank, Charlie "Tax Man" Rangel, Tim "Family Values" Mahoney, Robert "Homeless" Wexler, Gerry "Chicken Hawk" Studds, Hazel "Globetrotter" O'Leary, Elliott "Emperors Club VIP" Spitzer, Marion "Cokehead" Barry, James "Gay Gov" McGreevey, Kwame "Text Message" Kilpatrick, and the DNC (1996 foreign contributions) (more here).  To gain the trust of the people, you have to be trustworthy.

A second consideration is establishing a solid base from which Democratic misconduct can be highlighted.  In this past election, Republicans hit Obama with Bill Ayers and he shot back with the Keating Five.  This counter punch transforms a potentially powerful right vs. wrong issue into a weaker spitting contest of which transgression is worse.  A prerequisite to being self-righteous is to be righteous.

To regain political momentum, Republicans should set the standard for ethics, transparency, and conduct that exceed what is loosely described as "ethical standards" for Congress.  John McCain tried to initiate bipartisan ethics reform, to no avail.  So, let's forget the "bipartisan" and make it Republican ethics reform.  A Republican who breaks the rules or betrays the public trust while in office should be evicted from the party.  Note how this compares with Democrats, who turned on Joe Lieberman for being disloyal but allow William Jefferson, Charlie Rangel, and Chris Dodd to remain Democrats.  Strict ethics may cause Republicans to lose a few more seats, but at this point it doesn't matter much and in the long run the party will be better for it.

Platform
I would not presume to tell the Republican Party how to write a platform, but I will mention a few issues that seem relevant.  First, the conservative voice remains very relevant in America's political dialog.  However, Dick Morris and others have pointed out that the Republican Party only loosely represents conservatives.  There are good reasons for the party to consider revitalizing its conservative heritage.  The enthusiastic acceptance of Sarah Palin versus the tepid response to John McCain appears largely due to her conservative versus his moderate politics.  The surprising support gained by libertarian Ron Paul and before him, Ross Perot, stems from their endorsement of small government, fiscal responsibility, and individual rights.

A second issue is the Republican Party's affiliation with the religious right.  Australian Prime Minister Howard told Muslims that his country was based on secular law and if they wanted to live by Sharia Law they would have to move elsewhere.  Similarly, American Christians should understand that to have the religious freedom they cherish, government cannot base its laws on any one set of religious tenets.  When considering our laws, the appropriate reference is the Constitution, not the Bible.  What, then, is it reasonable for the Republican Party to promise the religious right?  Perhaps that it will uphold religious freedom, fight against assaults on religion including Christianity, and advocate conservative values.  Regarding the controversial Roe v. Wade decision, it is very doubtful that it will ever be overturned now that it has 35 years of legal precedence.  Conservative Christians should accept this reality and not ask the Republican Party to joust with this particular windmill any more.  However, it is reasonable for the Republican Party to work to restrict abortions in the same way the Democrats work to restrict Second Amendment rights.

Based on this admittedly cursory foundation, the following areas are offered for consideration as the Republican Party deliberates its future direction.

• Ethics.  Fairly or not, Republicans have been hammered in recent years over honesty and accountability in government.  As noted in the previous section, regaining America's trust will require Republicans to live to the highest standards, not to the lowest common denominator.
  
• Fiscal Responsibility.  The federal debt is now a staggering $10 trillion.  Servicing this debt consumes substantial resources and weighs on the economy like an anchor, threatening future prosperity.  Reducing spending, balancing the budget, and paying off the debt need to be more than campaign rhetoric.
  
• Small Government.  Democrats generally advocate bigger government and, unfortunately, so has the Republican Party in recent years.  We literally cannot afford this trend to continue.  Fortunately, polls suggest the majority of Americans favor smaller government, at least theoretically. 
  
• Fairness.  The Democrats think of "fairness" as equal outcomes, from the Marxist tradition.  While this makes for seductive rhetoric, such policies have never been shown to work.  The American dream is based on opportunity, not welfare.  Fairness requires two things: 1) economic mobility so that people truly have the chance to better their lives and 2) equal opportunity.  Republicans need to communicate this concept of fairness clearly and endorse policies that remove barriers to economic mobility and equal opportunity.
  
• Compassion.  A mark of a great society is that it cares for those that are not able to make their own way.  This should always be a priority for America.  However, government handouts should not be a substitute for personal responsibility, industry, or initiative.
  
• Free Markets.  America's greatness has been largely due to free market capitalism.  For America to continue to grow, prosper, and provide an unparalleled quality of life for its citizens in this era of global economies it is necessary that we do everything possible to maintain a positive business climate and not handicap the ability of our businesses and corporations to compete.  Promoting opportunity and innovation creates jobs and expands economic mobility.  High taxes on businesses and investments to fund social programs may seem compassionate in the short run but they slow economic growth and regressively increase costs to lower income individuals.  History has shown free market capitalism to be the best way to increase prosperity and reduce poverty.  Hands down.
  
• Sensible Regulation.  The opposite of regulation isn't corruption, it's freedom.  Regulations are useful to keep things running adequately if not smoothly, to promote confidence in our systems, and to provide protections to citizens.  Republicans should emphasize balancing regulations with freedoms, in contrast to the nanny state levels of regulation Democrats appear to favor.  The down side of freedom is that people have the right to make bad decisions and they must take responsibility for their decisions, both good and bad.  This can be a hard sell, particularly in light of recent financial bailouts that give the impression that government should provide a reset button for life.  However, unlike a video game, government's reset button doesn't come for free.
  
• Religious Rights.  There is a cliche that the Constitution protects freedom of religion, not freedom from religion (other than separation of church and state).  It seems government has taken a fairly passive role regarding freedom of religion.  The Republican Party may want to consider advocating a more active stance in assuring people can practice their religion without interference from others.  One example is gay protestors who entered a San Francisco Catholic church and disrupted services.  They may have been exercising their freedom of speech but they were interfering with the congregation's right to worship.
  
• Defense.  Democrats seem to believe social programs and entitlements are the federal government's top priority.  Money can be taken away from the defense budget whenever it is convenient to fund these programs.  Yet national defense is a constitutional mandate of the federal government.  Republicans have always had these priorities straight and should continue to do so.
  
• States' Rights.  As federal oversight has increased, it has necessarily usurped the rights of state and local governments.  A plan to reduce the size of federal government could easily incorporate measures to increase states' rights.  State and local government has the advantage of dealing more directly with regional issues and can be more responsive to citizens.  I suggest that the first consideration for any measure that comes before Congress be, "Is this something that could be handled at the state level?"
  

Campaign
In his presidential victory speech, Obama said his was the greatest political campaign in history.  This is arguably true.  There is little doubt that the Republican campaign was outmaneuvered at every turn.  This included fundraising, media relations, grassroots efforts such as Camp Obama, incorporation of ACORN, opposition research, and use of modern technology such as the Internet and cell phones.  At this point, Obama is refining and expanding his strategies along with consolidating his power base.  It is likely that his methods will infuse all future Democratic campaigns.

To avoid being outplayed again, Republican operatives must study this election, identify what they did wrong and, perhaps more important, what Obama's campaign did to win.  This returns us to the issue of accountability.  There can be no room in future campaigns for individuals who do not perform well or go public with criticism or bickering, nor can there be any sacred cows when it comes to strategy and tactics.  Sentiment cannot deter revision of strategy and cronyism cannot hamper changes in personnel.

Obama's campaign drew heavily from the no holds barred, do anything to win community organizer strategies pioneered by Saul Alinsky (Rules for Radicals).  In fact, Alinsky's son complimented Obama on how effectively he implemented these methods.  Interestingly, Hillary Clinton also studied Alinsky.  Here are a few examples of specific strategies Obama used.

• Ridicule.  Responding to ridicule can be very difficult.  Instead of simply disagreeing with or criticizing McCain, Obama frequently ridiculed or mocked him.  A good example is when he said he was going to be accused of being socialistic because, "I shared my toys in kindergarten."
  
• Get opponent to follow the rules.  Obama frequently accused McCain of being divisive, not discussing the issues, or running a negative campaign.  The intent is to make it appear McCain isn't following the rules.  Meanwhile, Obama was perfectly content to be divisive, not discuss the issues, or run his own negative campaign.  The idea is to try to get your opponent to follow rules.  If you then break the rules, you gain an advantage.
  
• Appeal to the middle class.  Alinsky was all about acquiring power which he saw in terms of people and money.  He felt the poor have no power, so if you want to acquire power you have to mobilize the middle class.  Obama did so constantly and after one of the presidential debates he commented that McCain hadn't mentioned the middle class once during the debate.  Clearly, he had his target audience clearly in his sights.
  
• Appeal to self-interest.  Alinsky wanted community organizers who were motivated by self-interest and he had no patience with do-gooders.  He understand how powerful self-interest could be.  Obama consistently appealed to self-interest of voters in the areas of tax cuts, health care, and money for college.  He would often translate concepts or theories into specific benefits for people, usually the middle class.
  
• Use guilt and shame.  Alinsky advocated using guilt and shame to manipulate society's "haves" into giving to society's "have nots".  Thus, Obama said it was "neighborly" to pay taxes (Biden called it "patriotic") and that not paying higher taxes was "selfish".  This doesn't seem to have been as effective as other Alinsky techniques.
  
• Use large events.  Large events are useful because they are memorable and intimidating.  Some members of the media seemed puzzled about Obama's speech in Berlin and moving his acceptance speech to Invesco Field.  They are straight out of Alinsky writings.
  
• Have plans.  If you don't have a plan, you give your opponent an opening for criticism.  Obama's campaign had lots of plans and promises, and he would often criticize McCain for being out of ideas.  Now that he has won the election, Republican strategists should carefully track his performance on his numerous campaign promises.  Hopefully, they can be his undoing.
  

These methods can be difficult to counter and it seems that Republican operatives should be prepared to face them in the future.

One thing's for sure.  If Democrats pursue their stated agenda and Republicans shore up their conservative position, you won't need a scorecard to tell them apart in the next election