Recently, a friend commented that complacency was what defeated John Kerry in the presidential election of 2004 and Hillary Clinton in 2008. Just what is complacency, and how can it be so important as to lose elections?

A textbook definition of “complacency” is as follows: “a feeling of quiet pleasure or security, often while unaware of some potential danger, defect, or the like.” Simply put, complacency is a misguided sense of safety or certainty. Politicians can get away with complacency for quite some time. But complacency caught up with Mr. Kerry. He lost his presidential bid basically because he thought he was so superior to George W. Bush that he couldn’t really lose. Ms. Clinton did not heed warnings to avoid the caucus states, believing that simply getting her name on the ballot would ensure her victory.

Republicans, while they enjoyed a clear majority, could afford complacency. After all, they were confident they were right—and as long as most Americans agreed with conservative ideas, they could afford to be a little smug. But that time has come to a close. We are entering a new era along the continuum of mainstream political thought. Conservatives may be in a stage of denial, but observant people have begun to nudge each other—apprehension is beginning to set in.

When Mr. Bush took office, it was reasonable to assume that an adequate “business plan” for a president was not to misbehave in office as Bill Clinton had done while in office. Tax cuts would help him preside over a strong economy. Conservative methods of diplomacy and the maintenance of a strong defense should have taken care of national security issues. Later, when the time was right, privatizing a small part of social security and establishing a Medicare drug benefit might win over independent and even some liberal voters. He also planned to establish a “new tone” which was meant to end partisan rancor. It seemed simple.

However, even a person possessing the family background and sufficient political experience to expect such plans to work must have some degree of collaboration—events over the past few years show how important this is.

Unfortunately for Mr. Bush and for the country, the attacks on September 11 touched a match to the political powder keg of American politics. Enjoying 90 percent approval ratings immediately following, the president had no idea that Democrats would dare to actively oppose and ultimately undermine the war effort. Fearing that Republicans could be strengthened to political dominance, Democrats successfully counteracted the rallying effect of war with the aid of a powerful, sympathetic media. An ideological battle erupted unlike any seen in this country since the build-up to the Civil War, creating a political tsunami.

Some conservatives were not comfortable with Mr. Bush as a candidate in 2000. Their discomfort can be seen as a kind of prescience—not of specific events like the attacks on the World Trade Center, but they felt a general apprehension that the position of president in these times requires sufficient ideological backbone to resist the kind of undermining Mr. Bush experienced.

In these ideologically demanding times, complacency has become a luxury we cannot afford. Our next presidential nominee must have strength of conviction so that in case of another catastrophe such as the financial melt-down of the last eight months, he or she will not be manipulated into such a blunder as “abandoning the free market in order to save it,” as Mr. Bush said in a CNN interview last fall.

Any group who begins to realize that things are not as they were—that is, enough people disagree that opposition needs to be taken seriously—is in danger of falling into finger-pointing, accusations, anger, denial, even panic, disarray and stampeding. The situation could turn into a rout.

Conservatives need to find a way to reconcile their convictions with necessary adjustments in reaction to circumstances beyond their control. It is important to discover how to do this whether or not they are in denial or are reeling from assault. The acceptance of defeat can be akin to complacency in the sense that there is relief in just giving up.

There is danger inherent in relinquishing the responsibility to struggle by acquiescing to powerful political forces in the interest of “getting things done.” In the Weimar Republic, the government that preceded the Nazis in Germany, members of the Reichstag felt they needed to compromise with parties of the left. The communists took credit for moving moderates to the left while moderates were blamed for not going far enough to compromise. At the same time, people reasoned that by conceding to communist ideas, moderates had no political ground to stand on and could not hold these ideas back from their logical conclusions.

Nationalized health care is recognized as a tipping point from which any independent people find it difficult to return to limited government. The United States has reached this critical juncture. Conservatives must keep fighting. Just as we can no longer afford complacency, we also cannot afford to be dumb-struck, baffled or disabled. We need to stand on the strength of our convictions and resist capitulation.