Rahm Emanuel says that the Republican party has become the party of "no"--devoid of constructive alternatives to those parts of the Obama program to which Republicans and conservatives object. There is some truth in that. After all, there is much to which to say "no": a stimulus program that hasn't got much to do with stimulating the economy; a budget that threatens the nation with financial ruin and future generations with an inheritance inscribed in red ink; massive and, worse still, irreversible federal intrusions into key segments of the economy; and a foreign policy aimed at grasping the hand of Hugo Chávez while turning a cold shoulder to Benjamin Netanyahu.

But there is more to a loyal opposition than saying "no." There is an obligation to propose solutions to problems that need solving. We conservatives might not be the change we have been waiting for, but neither should we oppose change simply because we are offended by those who claim to personify it. Besides, as Barack Obama is fond of pointing out, they won. He and his congressional colleagues swept the board because Republicans in power acted as if compassion requires a major expansion of spending and of the size of government; because George W. Bush was a less than competent communicator; because the estimable John McCain's shambolic campaign led voters to question his ability to manage the federal bureaucracy. Every reader will have his own list, so I will stop there.

No matter the cause, Republicans are now in the position of observers of the passing legislative and regulatory scene. They have learned that the president's professed willingness to work with them in a bipartisan fashion was so much campaign rhetoric. Unless they come up with some really good alternatives to the policies being pushed by this avowedly transformational and dazzlingly telegenic president, they have no chance of being heard by voters in the run-up to next year's congressional elections. While the majority of Americans remain suspicious of big government and are worried about the consequences of the administration's spending spree, they see in Obama a bright, articulate, reasonable non-Bush. If you believe that conservatives' return to power is likely without new ideas to offer, read no further--for you, the problem is solved.

But few experts with whom I have spoken in Washington believe that the Republicans can make a serious comeback without having policies that accept the president's goals, but map different routes to their attainment.

No use arguing whether the globe is warming as a result of the use of carbon-based fuels: Rightly or wrongly, voters believe that to be the case.

No use arguing that the nation's health care system produces a quantity and quality of care that is satisfactory: Rightly or wrongly, many voters fear the financial consequences of even nonserious illnesses or of a loss of job-based insurance coverage.

No use arguing that the education system produces equal opportunity for the children of rich and poor to achieve their potentials: Too many unbright sons of alumni inhabit the classrooms of our better colleges while poorer kids lack the educational foundation that might gain them admission even if the admission criteria are skewed in their favor.

And no use arguing that the income-distribution and tax systems produce results that are fair and efficient: They don't.

In short, Obama has identified Americans' concerns and is in the process of persuading them to abandon their suspicion of big government and accept the fact that these ills can be cured only if government appropriates to itself a larger portion of the nation's income, hires a minimum of 600,000 more workers, and controls the availability and quality of such essentials as health care and energy. If he succeeds, it will be only because the Republicans have failed to show the way to better solutions. This would be a pity, since better solutions are at hand.