It’s easy to make fun of the Live Earth concerts – with all these pampered, puerile performers consuming prodigious amounts of energy in order to pontificate about the desperate need for “little people” to do their bit to conquer Global Warming. The Al Gore inspired inanity that played out in every corner of the globe seemed to concentrate on the message that the billions (literally) who watched these events on the tube couldn’t do anything on their own, but needed to wait for government to change policies in order to make a real difference. In other words, Live Earth managed to re-cycle one thing, at least – the old liberal mistake that says that citizens can’t do anything to help themselves (or their country, or their world) and their only hope involves changing government. In other words, to liberals (like all the well-intentioned bozos who participated in Live Earth) change only matters when it’s government initiated and government mandated. In truth, bottom-up changes in private, individual behavior (which are eminently possible on this issue) brings far greater impact than any top-down bureaucratic demand.

Conservatives may provide such obvious responses to the seven-continent-concerts, but in the long run it won’t stop the left from making Global Warming and energy conservation into major political issues in the Presidential Election of 2008. There’s no doubt that “Saving the Planet” will constitute one of the three big imperatives that Democrats will emphasize endlessly between now and Election Day – the others being “Ending the Iraq War” and providing “Health Insurance for All.”

Republicans may snicker at the left’s political posturing but this triad gives the Dems a huge advantage in the forth-coming race. They promise – no matter how implausibly – three big changes that will impact the lives of every American.

And Republicans are promising….what, exactly?

So far, our only response to the Democratic promises on Peace, Health Care and the Environment is that liberal solutions don’t work and tend to make situations worse than before. These arguments need to be made, and the public should be appropriately frightened by the huge increase in the size and cost of government implicit in liberal plans. But these warnings hardly constitute the sort of positive program or soaring vision that can energy a cynical and dispirited electorate.

In a sense, the two natural issues for Republicans – fighting terrorism and protecting economic growth – have been taken off the table by the remarkably successful administration of George W. Bush (regardless of his low approval ratings). The President has done such an outstanding job of keeping the nation safe from major attack, and keeping the economy chugging reliably forward, that most Americans take this success for granted. They assume that prosperity and domestic security represent some natural state of affairs, and Republican candidates will score few points by promising to continue these good times.

Instead, Republicans must counter the grand schemes of the Democrats with some thrilling visions of our own. The obvious possibilities involve saving Social Security (everyone knows it’s broken), radical tax simplification (Fair Tax, anyone?) or a guarantee of free choice in education for every American. Dramatic legal reform might also generate energy and enthusiasm – with pledges to reduce he crushing cost and profound drag on the economy of nuisance lawsuits.

And what about an across-the-board reduction in federal spending and a shrinking of the size of government? If Republicans make an aggressive pledge to slash the bureaucracy, including written commitments from both the Presidential and Congressional candidates, it will be up to the Democrats to defend absurd programs like the Teapot Museum or the millions for “mood altering lamps” at the Centers for Disease Control. The Republicans could—and should – publicize some new outrageous example of asinine federal spending every one of the hundred days between their convention and the election. Maybe they should begin right now – there are certainly enough wasteful examples to go around.

So far, our candidates have done a miserable job of seizing control of the national debate and the campaign’s agenda. If they don’t start talking about major changes that might actually electrify elements of the public then we’ll spend the entire campaign talking about “Health Insurance for All” and “Energy Conservation to Save Drowning Polar Bears” and, of course, “Bringing the Boys Home from Iraq” (which no Democrat and no Republican will actually be able to do… but that’s another story).

In other words, if we continue our internal bickering and allow the other side to determine the terms of the debate, Republicans will lose – and we may lose very badly.