Patrick Ruffini observes:

If nothing else, the first 70 days of Obama — with an assist from the last 4 months of Bush — has left government economic policy so off-kilter that it may take a decade or more to fix. Remember that exhausted to-do list? Not a problem any more. . .

Though it has apparently triumphed, this is a dangerous moment for liberalism. Long-planned moves toward redistribution like universal health care or the repeal of the Bush tax cuts are being conflated with and to some extent elbowed aside by emergency nationalizations and Mr.  Geithner’s experiments.

Ironically, liberals in their moment of triumph may be exposed as never before while conservatives at their low ebb electorally have, to a large degree, not been as energized since the 1980 election.

Since their electoral thumping in November, conservatives have had many internal arguments and debates, some of which go to substance and others, to tactics. But as we make our way through the First 100 Days there is remarkable cohesion around the notion of “not Obamaism.” (We’re not supposed to call it socialism.) That is not to say, opposition to him personally, but to the dizzying policies he is pursuing. The glimpse of statism is alarming to those who value individual liberty and free markets. And in some sense the actions we are witnessing go beyond conservatives’ worst fears.

They expected that under Obama government spending would grow and liberal pet projects would increase. But fewer of them believed the rule of law would be at risk (e.g., cramming down mortgages, government seizures of business, bonus claw-backs) or that Obama’s team would seek to micromanage hiring, compensation, and other aspects of the day-to-day operation of corporate America. And Obama’s rush to do it all (from health-care to cap-and-trade) and do it fast with nary a concern for constitutional niceties has left many on the Right slack-jawed at the sheer scope of Obama’s ambition.

To say there has been a visceral reaction against the enormous acquisition of government authority would be a vast understatement. Suddenly conservatives are forced to articulate why market capitalism is preferable to state-directed economies. They have been, by circumstances, driven to explain the benefits of decentralized decision-making and the connection between markets and personal liberty. (Conservatives love this sort of thing so there is a revived sense of purpose in the ranks despite their dismal political condition.)

Had Obama chosen a moderate centrist course, I rather doubt such a robust conservative discussion would be raging. But Obama is no moderate — and in that sense he has provided the incentive and opportunity for conservatives to make their case. By populating his administration with implausible and hapless functionaries, he has presented conservatives with the opening to explain the folly that comes from presuming that the “best and the brightest” can run a modern, globalized economy.

Will conservatives succeed in beating back Obamaism? Much depends on how committed Obama is to his Leftist course and how disastrous the results are. Unemployment rates, bond auctions, deficit figures, and other economic indicators will have much to do with the success of conservatives’ attempted revival. Americans are an immensely practical people, and are perhaps more likely to be persuaded by “Look what a mess!” arguments than by appeals on purely ideological grounds. After all, had Jimmy Carter not made such hash out of the economy, there may have been no Reagan Revolution.

For now, conservatives are having a brief interlude to make their philosophical principles clear. We’ll see in the era of Obama if the public perks up.