Civilian federal employment grew under Reagan. Just sayin'.

McCain is a Reaganite? Who knew!

Not a Reagan fan. But I think he does show one of the main problems in politics. Image trumping pretty much everything else (truth, ability, philosophy). People liked Reagan, he was an actor so put a camera on him and he could sell snow to eskimos. Obama can do the same thing. Both have the press eating out of their hands.

Crid, you're right. But as in the case of the 1986 immigration "reform", everything that Reagan compromised on came back to bite the country in the ass. And Rubin is advocating further compromise on these same issues. She makes an issue of drawing a distinction between "limited government" and "small government"... but in rejecting Reaganism, has she also rejected Reagan's maxim that "a government that is big enough to give you everything you want, is a government that is big enough to take away everything you have"? Since she has bought into the idea of govenrment solving people's problems for them, you can connect the dots from there.

Honestly, the one thing I saw in Rubin's missive that was anything other than socialism-lite or diversity chic was the one idea of federalism. And there, she does have a good point. However, since federalism would constitute a threat to the entitlement classes, it will never gain traction. The MSM will portray it as a dangerous idea from the gun-totin' far right, and that's all most people will hear.

And that's the fundemental problem with Rubin's stance: there can be no compromise with leftism, because it is a totalitarian ideology. There's no such thing as "we'll allow leftism to proceed to here, but no further". Reagan's biggest mistake was assuming that the Democrats were negotiating with him in good faith. They never were; incrementing was always the plan since way back before Reagan's presidency. It has worked, and the entitlement classes that leftism has created now hold an absolute majority. Unless their GOTV efforts break down for some reason, they will win every national election from here on out, and the increasing trend will be centralization of power. Rubin foolishly thinks she can bargain with the devil.

And Akatsukami has a great point: McCain as a Reaganite? What was Rubin smoking when she wrote that? Honestly, she usually makes more sense than she does in this article.

McCain is not a Reaganite, IMO. He is a global-warmist Gringo de Mexico who wants to legalize the millions of invaders.that broke into our country.

(Yes, I'm aware that Reagan signed an amnesty bill. He came to regret it.)

DeMint strikes me as neither angry nor aging.

Do I detect a subliminal call for supporting gay marriage, amnesty and maybe even infanticide (a.k.a. "abortion") in that Rubin excerpt?

Rubin is the faux conservative the WaPo can trot out as proving how "balanced" they are. If it weren't for Krauthamer and Will on the OpEd pages, there would not be a hint of a smattering of a smidgen of conservatism in that rag.

mpetrie98, there's nothing subtle about Rubin's advocating for gay marriage. She wants the GOP to be in favor of it. The problem is, looking at it strictly from a tactical standpoint, it's hard to see this issue as a winner for the party. It will put off a lot of the soc-cons (who, as we saw with Romney, will stay home on Election Day), and most of the voters who support gay marriage won't vote Republican for other reasons.

Rubin spends a lot of time talking about immigration reform, and I'm not sure what she actually means by that phrase. From what I recall, she has opposed amnesty in the past.

Political parties are always shrines to their last most successful presidents. The Democrats still haven't gotten over FDR. JFK, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, and Obama were all big-government driven liberals in the New Deal mode - trying to implement a modern version of the New Deal powered by Keynesian-like economic policies (although JFK did deviate from the party's "higher tax rates" dogma).

While the Democratic officeholders and candidates no longer compare themselves directly to FDR (except Obama), the imprimatur of a '30s socialistic big government party not only remains, but has been strengthened over the years to the point that the Democratic party power elite has few if any true economic centrists remaining.

Nationally, the Republicans have idealized Reagan (like the Democrats have FDR). Candidates of widely disparate economic and political philosophies wrap themselves in Reagan's legacy, tailoring it to fit their own candidacies (ignoring their deviations from Reagan's programs and professed beliefs). "Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong."

The good news for Republicans is that Reagan was backed by a coalition of Rockefeller Republicans, social conservatives, and fiscal conservatives. That leaves room for a variety of political philosophies to call themselves "Reaganesque" and not be too far from the truth - giving the party a broader philosophical base (despite the out-sized role the hard core social conservatives play in the creation of the party's presidential platform).

FDR, on the other hand, was powered almost solely by the big government liberal wing of his party. Once in power, he began the process of neutering the blue dog Democrats - later evicted from the party by Truman and Johnson - and creating a one-philosophy party.

The thing that Rubin and all of the other conservative commentators are really struggling with is this: A majority of the voters are now all-in for unlimited government, as long as said government gives them bennies. Unless a percentage of those voters can be convinced to step back from the edge of the cliff, none of this other philosophizing matters; socialism, crony capitalism, and government growth will continue until there's no more booty to be pirated. At that point, the house of cards collapses, and then all bets are off.

How would a political party go about convincing people to voluntarily remove themselves from the entitlement class? I'm not sure, but I have a few ideas. For one thing, certain subsets are probably easier to pry off, ex., young people with college educations and big student loans who want to work but can't find employment. A political story tailored to this group, with a promise of relief from student loans, might could sell them on the vision of reduced regulation and more job opportunities, but the bargain the'd have to agree to would be reduction of benefits. Would they go for this? I'm not sure, but it's worth trying.

Also: Everyone seems like they want to just ban the white guy from politics. Does not anyone in the political world see this as an untapped resource? Or is it necessary in today's world to carry out a pogram against white men in order to attract other voters? If so, what does it say about the fundemental state of our politics and culture? Who goes Nazi in America today?

Most Americans have no idea what conservatives stand for besides being anti gay marriage and anti abortion. This focus on the social ideals that a huge number of Americans either don't share or don't give a crap about has hurt them, and will continue hurting them until they move on.

They keep clinging to these issues because few things fire up the base like what people do with their genitals, but it's going to kill them in the long run.

What's also hurting them is the notion that people who lean liberal do so because they want benefits. I and my husband vote Democrat in most elections. So do our friends. We're upper middle class and don't get things like food stamps and tuition assistance, nor do we want those things.

It's easy for the GOP to dismiss Democratic voters as leeches, and that's also hurting them. If they're going to start the political conversation with, "You guys suck," they're not going to get many people to listen.

People vote liberal because they want security and they think they can get it using other peoples' money. This is completely and utterly ignorant as a means of government and explains the other reason why people vote liberal: because they don't know any better.

"Security" can be government guaranteed (hahaha) entitlements (hahahaha) or the social (literally) security of holding the "correct" views consistent with the big government-media narrative. Monica P, you may not take entitlements (yet) but your sanctimony is bought and paid for with other peoples' money. Maybe you should learn something about those other people. Maybe pause to figure out that the social ideals you describe are no longer the defining characteristic of conservatives and are, in fact, a definining characteristic of large blocs of Democrat Party voters. Ahoi, Polloi!Conservatives these days have a diverse range of views on social issues but that the central defining conservative ideology is opposition to big government, if nothing else for the simple reason that we are going to run out of other peoples' money.

Jennifer Rubin is a big ole Establishment Republican. She's always whining to get the Republican Party to be more like the Democrat Party so we can all be one big happy bullshit bureacracy. Oh, dear, the filthy little conservatives still appreciate Reagan. How awful!

Of COURSE she works at the WaPo.

Let's talk to our pets!

Who's a corrupt little piggie? Who is? Yes you are!

Yes you ARE!

Republicans should quit listening to liberals who advise them to be more like Democrats - which I think deep down inside they really want to be. If the choice is between a Romney, or a McCain, and an Obama, most voters will choose the real deal. A real Democrat will let more passengers on the gravy train.

I'm more on the libertarian side.

Do what you want, but don't expect me to pay for it. The federal government's budget should be limited as well as it's functions.

"They keep clinging to these issues because few things fire up the base like what people do with their genitals..."

And

"If they're going to start the political conversation with, "You guys suck," they're not going to get many people to listen"

Pot, allow me to introduce you to kettle.

Both have the press eating out of their hands.

Reagan? really? the "press" hated Reagan. They thought he was a dim-witted moron, and were constantly surprised when he outsmarted them time and time again.

And that only lead to more hate on their part.

Also, when Reagan drew a line in the sand, and said there would be consequences, there were consequences.

Ask all the fired air traffic controllers, or if you have an Ouji board, Mommar Khadaffi.

"Also, when Reagan drew a line in the sand, and said there would be consequences, there were consequences."

Yep. Making empty threats has been one of the worst characteristics of post-WWII Presidents. Absolutely no one in the Middle East fears the consequences of crossing Obama, because they know there won't be any. And he's definitely not the first President of the past half-century to paint himself into this corner. When Reagan made a threat, he was fully prepared to carry it out.

Jennifer Rubin is an embarrasment to conservatism.

In reality, what might actually make the Republican Party viable again, as opposed to the political version of the Washington Generals, would be a Reaganesque vision - government is the problem, not the solution; reduce the tax burden; spend less; and add in a reduction in military spending now that we're no longer tied up in the Cold War and have no recognizable international enemy (not a targetable one, at any rate).

Like Reagan discovered, it might be tough to get that through Congress, but at least they'd STAND for something.