The question now, after the election, concerns in what direction the nation is heading, and whether all 59 million of those Bush supporters really want to go that way. I’m pretty sure the other 55-odd million voters do not.

The danger now is that the administration believes it has a mandate to stay the course and push full-speed ahead, while a new Republican-controlled Congress can easily veer off its moderate track and form a caravan on the road the White House has constructed.

For that reason, it is common these days to hear people say that the country has become more conservative or has taken a turn to the right, whatever those words mean. It is a fact today that the conservative label, whether applied to people or politicians, has taken on a more-positive connotation.

But what does it mean to be conservative? Traditionally, the word does have that meaning of staying the course, of denoting the position that the current state of affairs is working fine so change is not necessary. That stance was opposed to the one termed liberal, which advocated change or progress.

The problem is that, except in a vacuum, change or movement is some direction is unavoidable. It’s not like you can just turn the engine off, stop in the middle of the road and say, "OK, let’s stay here.’’ You’re going to get clobbered from behind and find it difficult to get moving again without some major repairs.

Applied to government, the conservative approach traditionally has been one of non-interference in people’s lives and non-intervention abroad. The old saying of the masses was that with Republicans in power you wouldn’t have to worry about government looking over your shoulder while you starved in the street.

On the other hand, the great programs of the 20th century that reached out to help the people, such as the New Deal of the 1930s and the Great Society of the 1960s, were launched by liberals. Likewise, all the major wars of that century were fought or begun with Democratic presidents in office.

The extension of government begun with the War on Poverty in the 1960s continued through the 1970s with spending on a multitude of social programs and environmental regulations. But a major change occurred with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, and liberal-conservative tables have been turning ever since.

Reagan wasn’t just a conservative willing to pull in the reins on the liberal agenda. He was a reactionary who wanted to turn back the clock and dismantle the edifice government had constructed to take care of people. We have been feeling the effects of his undertaking for more than two decades.

It was the Democrat Bill Clinton who signed off on welfare reform, watched the unfettered growth of the world of the Internet and allowed the health-care crisis to soar. Suddenly, we had a Democrat acting like a conservative by continuing the withdrawal of government from people’s lives, while in many ways allowing market forces to rule. And he benefited from the resulting prosperity.

And then comes George W. Bush, who was elected on the promise of a "compassionate conservatism’’ and corresponding conservative foreign policy.

Blame 9/ll if you want, but the promise was never fulfilled.

Contrary to the conservative mode he boasts of, he set off on a reactionary trail from the start. Reactionary, not conservative. The difference is that the Bush agenda really seeks to go backward rather than stay the course. He wants to resume the rewinding of the clock begun by Reagan and halted by the conservative Clinton.

Analysts say he was re-elected because of a voting block that latched on to his moral values and agreed with his desire to go backward, to an era when abortion was illegal, teachers were prosecuted for teaching evolution and homosexuals knew better than to go to the altar. A conservative would not have such an agenda.

He was re-elected because a voting block agreed that our foreign policy should return to the age of a century ago when wars of in- fluence were fought to extend the American empire, its way of life and to put down the heathens.

He was re-elected because a voting block agreed that government should spend more money on war and less on people while extending its grip around personal freedom.

No, I can’t believe all 59 million people want to go there. Once that train starts rolling backward, however, it is difficult to stop it. And it certainly can’t be stopped on a dime. But let’s climb aboard and grab the brake before it gets going too fast.

Cary Brunswick is managing editor of The Daily Star and can be reached at 432-1000, ext. 217, or at cary@thedailystar.com.