Breaking Up Is Hard to Do

It's been a foregone conclusion since McCain emerged as the solid GOP frontrunner that the excitement in the 2008 primary season lies on the Democratic side. McCain's got it sewn up, the Dems are locked in a heated battle. True enough, but I think there is something interesting, and even historical, about the way the Republican race has played out.

Even though the GOP candidates have essentially held to the Bush line in many respects, they have certainly not gone out of their way to align themselves with Bush by name. The name they prefer to have associated with them is, of course, Ronald Reagan.

Why? Well, of course, not wanting to be associated with Bush is a no-brainer. The president has a 30% approval rating. But Reagan was popular, and is the icon of modern conservativism and Republican supremacy. He was the architect of the "three-legged stool" upon which the Republican party has been seated for a quarter of a century.

The three components of Reaganist Republicanism are foreign policy conservatives, economic conservatives, and social conservatives. These three groups' interests don't always coincide, but they have maintained an alliance that is showing definite signs of breaking down.

For instance, we have seen much greater interest and involvement by evangelicals when it comes to the environment and poverty. To me, these seem like entirely natural issues for Christians to take a left of center position on, but this is counter to the interests of the economic conservatives, so it has been repressed. The fact that this is changing, along with other factors, leads to the conclusion that the GOP stool has had its day.

One of the other indicators seems to be this primary season. The Republican Party is normally the party of unity, but that isn't the case this cycle. We have in fact seen a foreign policy conservative (McCain), an economic conservative (Romney), and a social conservative (Huckabee), splitting the Republican vote. Conventional wisdom says Huckabee and Romney were splitting the anti-McCain vote, and that may be true to some extent, but I think the data show that the Reagan coalition is fractured, probably fatally.

What does this mean? I think it may portend the rise of the "New Republican", The Giuliani's and Schwartzenegger's, and even the McCain's; people who take a hard line on foreign policy, but may be more relaxed economically, and who could even be described as liberal on social issues.

Everything changes, and I feel we may be witness to a number of them this cycle, not the least of which is the evolution of the Republican party.