E.J. Dionne wrote on Friday (I'm just getting through all of my back-reading after the Ron Paul event on Friday) of the Republican Party's Identity Crisis. This is something that I've written about in different contexts, as have many others. My original goal with this post was to do something that was not blatantly Ron Paul (my brother told me today that he attended a Ron Paul Meet-Up the other day, and plugged this site as being written by one who writes almost obsessively about Ron Paul). Still, when we talk about the problems of the Republican Party today, it's hard to do so without considering all the options.
Dionne points out that Fred Thompson is being looked at as the "new Reagan" or perhaps more accurately, the new savior of the Republican party. He even claims that Thompson's core of support comes from the old Goldwater-Reagan "fan club."
I don't disagree that there are many who are looking to Thompson as that "something special." There is a certain raw charisma--perhaps because of his comfort with cameras--which is appealing, and which can feed a hunger for hope. I think Fred Thompson would be an "o.k." president, and would certainly be preferable (from my Republican perspective) to Rudy Giuliani who strikes me as potentially Mussolini-like. Romney is an attractive candidate, but he's almost TOO smooth, and I have no idea what he REALLY believes on anything. McCain is not substantively different from Thompson, and while I would personally prefer McCain, I think, to Thompson, his time on the presidential candidate stage seems to be past.
Dionne points out that:
The last great redefinition of Republicanism, kicked off in 1964 with Barry Goldwater's nomination, was resolved with Ronald Reagan's election in 1980. Republicans bled liberals and embraced conservatism.
While I think that Dionne's argument there is not necessarily 100% historically accurate (there remains to this day a moderate-liberal element of the Republican Party, which while not necessarily the element in the majority, is certainly not left completely out of the political arena--it's those outside of the arena--the Sean Hannitys of this world--who are much more doctrinare about who is a "real Republican"), there is certainly truth in his notion that 1964 (actually Goldwater's 1960 speech to the Republican Convention) marked the beginning of a redefinition of Republicanism.
The Republican field today, save one, talk the talk of "smaller government," but when you get them down to the details, they are all willing to let government intrude even more, give government even more power, and take even more money from the taxpayers. Perhaps the new "redefinition" of the GOP is in process; perhaps it will involve a strange realignment of constituents; perhaps it will come on the heels of the growing enthusiasm surrounding Ron Paul's campaign for President. Win or lose (and I believe more and more every day that he COULD win), he may start the process of the leading the Republican party back to the principles of being the party of liberty, of small government, and individual rights rather than group entitlements. THAT wouldn't be a bad identity for the GOP to embrace.
LLE
