Over the next sixteen months leading up to the 2008 elections, Republicans face the daunting challenge of determining their identity. With the base of the party frustrated over the immigration bill, the nation frustrated with the war in Iraq, among a whole host of issues, the challenge seems daunting. E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post, who always writes a thought-provoking column, wonders if the Republican party can recapture the optimism of the Reagan years:
The great drama in American politics today revolves around the question: What is the Republican Party?
We think we know. Republicans are the party of business and of evangelical Christians, of better-off voters and people who hate taxes, the party of conservatism and the South, the party that wants to be aggressive in the battle against terrorism.
But the instability in the Republican presidential campaign, the longing for a Fred Thompson candidacy and the sharp split over immigration all point to an identity crisis at the end of the Bush era.
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.
In mapping the contours of the party's identity problem, Dionne says the party has moved away from its federalist impulses by supporting Rudy Giuliani, saying that he would not be the likely frontrunner without a national security "imprint." In Dionne's reasoning, the GOP has lost its identity outside of national security.
I wouldn't say that this is necessarily the problem. Security has been at the root of conservatism since the Goldwater-Reagan impluse, when Goldwater and Reagan wanted to aggressively engage the Soviet Union, and later argued for law and order at home, as Michael Flamm demonstrates in his recent book. The candidates for the GOP nomination have not swayed from the message of international strength and reduced government, as Dionne suggests.
The problem, in my view, has nothing to do with a Republican identity, but rather we simply don't trust our candidates to follow through on their promises. Republicans had the opportunity to push through their programs, with the advantage of a Republican Congress and Republican White House, yet we saw tremendous increases in discretionary federal spending, massive pork projects, government intrusion into areas like education, and incompetence in issues like border control. The problem isn't the Republican ideology or identity, but Republican politicians who failed to enact the Republican agenda. We want Republicans who mean what they say -- at that point, we'll have optimism.
Recent Comments