Meghan or Reagan - The Republican Choice?

Every pundit, news anchor, talk show host, journalist, blogger, Twitterer, gad about town and dude in camouflage shorts sitting at a computer has, in the last few weeks, had something to say about the future of the Republican party. The loudest and most repeated message is that Republicans are not modern; we are not hip. Things have changed, and yes we (Republicans) can, nay must, change with them. The quieter message insists that Republicans have already wandered too far toward Obama, too far away from what made the party work before.

The overall din is raucous. Are there to be purges, or big tents? Be more conservative! Be less conservative!! Punt Powell! No, pitch Palin!!

"Whither the party?" It's the question of the moment, and everyone has an answer - including me, the aforementioned dude in camouflage shorts. I think we can sum up the two most often touted paths rather neatly as "Meghan or Reagan".

You see, there are folks like Colin Powell who have gravitas as well as a strong claim to party affiliation in years past. Folks who recently and most famously have provided new prescriptions for the party; who would seem the natural spokespersons for the "center it" faction. Nevertheless, the left and the press have decided for us, and they have anointed Meghan McCain as the model of what a good Republican "ought" to be.

Likewise, though there are those in the thick of it, such as Dick Cheney, who are arguing back, the left and the media have made their own determinations about whom Ms. McCain is competing with: Ronald Reagan (not that there's anything wrong with that).

And though there are a variety of nuanced positions being taken by politicians, politicos, and pundits, the popular culture, and by extension a large swath of the potential voting population, are increasingly being fed the decision in the terms I've laid out here: Meghan vs. Reagan.

So what, then, does our rhyming battle of image encompass?

What is Meghanism all about?

The assertion that Meghan McCain's niche or position in the vast political-media hierarchy is to serve as critic of the Republicans from the inside is ground that is well-covered and easy to tread. It is easy as well to dismiss that role, as many of us on the right have, on the grounds that she has such a tenuous claim to being Republican in the first place.

But, there is clearly more to Meghanism than Meghan herself. Yes, the left, who sustain a cottage industry of pet republicans expressly for the purpose of trotting out criticism "from the inside" - Kathleen Parker, Christopher Buckley and even Frank Schaeffer come to mind - crowned Meghan queen of what we ought to be, just as they named Rush leader of that which we ought not, but that appointment still does not give the whole story.

Meghan McCain, I will stipulate, is representative of something. It is a mindset that we also witnessed in some who voted for President Obama (a selection Ms. McCain herself professed to toy with). Anyone who follows her @McCainBlogette account on Twitter will know what I am talking about.

Tonight I am going to be wearing tons of sparkles, tons of fabric, tons of hair and tons of makeup cause I like glamour and am not from DC!
12:11 PM May 9th from web

Meghan is not a policy wonk. She is not an ideologue. Read her articles at The Daily Beast and you find analysis which touches on genuine political issues in only the barest of fashion. Essentially her view of the GOP is that we are unhip, and that we don't attach to things which are popular in the pop culture, or which are important to the celebrities and crème de la crème with which she has become accustomed to associating. The Obama campaign, and some supporters, deliberately appealed to this demographic with great success. The McCain campaign tried to counter it with ... less success.

Much of the debate over the party future involves ideology, but for a younger and non-trivial portion of the electorate, politics is driven more by an affinity for cause célèbre than any deeply philosophical motivation. This is a product and function, of course, of the media saturation we all endure, as well as the habit of the left to use that saturated state to their advantage (see SNL, The Daily Show, Perez Hilton et al), as well as being a normal tendecy of the young.

None of which, incidentally, is directed as blame toward Meghan McCain. Ms. McCain is clearly a lovely and charismatic young woman. While many of us on the right have rightly criticized her and the left-moving positions she has staked out, it's largely been in response to her position as our critic. Had, instead, her first few stories been in support of the traditional Republican values she purports to support, there is little doubt some would have proudly claimed her as proof the GOP can appeal to the young and hip.

And this is what Meghanism really is about, isn't it? It's an appeal to pop culture.

Hollywood's politics gap is a gulf, a Grand Canyon-sized chasm. To say that popular media is dominated by the left is inadequate. As Entertainment industry figures like Roger L. Simon and Ron Silver have attested, there is not merely a predominance of the left in Hollywood, there is literal dominance, as in having dominion over. Being on the right is cause to be ostracized and cast out. Naturally, the result of that culture is that those politics are communicated out, they seep into every facet of the popular culture. That Republicans aren't cool is considered as self-evident a characteristic as the blue of the sky or the awfulness of Basic Instinct 2. Meghanism is an appeal to reach into that popular culture and be "cool" again.

There is, we must admit, some value to this. In other words, Ms. McCain has a point. If you are a political party that has become so untouchable that people must hide their membership then you've got obvious issues when it comes to ballot box time. It is as untenable and unsustainable a position to preach the abandonment of the popular culture as it would be to cut off one's leg in a foot race on the belief that, being lighter, you'd be faster. Still ...

What is Reaganism all about?

Just as Meghanism isn't of her creation nor solely about her, so Reaganism, as defined for this debate, isn't created by or solely about Ronald Reagan. For this exercise Reaganism doesn't refer to the original Reaganism. No one is saying, for example, that we should be overly concerned with the Soviet Union. But Reagan, it cannot be doubted, is symbolic and emblematic of a different side of the party, a side some are counseling we must at long last abandon.

Reaganism defines the portion of the Republican party which stands athwart history and yells "stop!" As Russell Kirk enunciated, "the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity." Naturally this does not mean that we cannot be innovative, or that we cannot embrace change when appropriate ... indeed, we can embrace revolution when required. Nevertheless, in Reaganism as the counter to Meghanism, it is a position of prudence rather than audacity.

This school of thought is lately focused on adherence to principle. George W. Bush, it is argued, strayed too far. He didn't hold to the principle of small-government, of fiscal conservatism. The party, far from not reaching out enough, is faltering for having reached too far.

This is, I must add, an entirely logical point of view. General Powell counseled for a Republican leadership that was more modern, which appealed to the center, which recognized that people these days "want more government, not less." Those appeals to moderation were played out in President Bush and Senator McCain. I'm hard pressed to create an imaginary ideal Republican candidate for General Powell that isn't a remarkable facsimile of Senator McCain. Yet even having that candidate, one who so well meets his own party prescription, Powell still saw fit to put his weight and influence behind the Democrat in the fall. That is hardly an argument in favor of taking the counsel of the "move to the center" faction.

Just look at the sequence of events from a conservative point of view. There is an appeal made to find a more centrist candidate, on the grounds that he is more electable because he'd appeal to moderates and independents. So a more centrist candidate is selected, to the chagrin of the conservative base. And though he was selected specifically for his appeal to Republicans who subscribe to General Powell's vision, they abandoned him anyway and voted Democrat. And worse, some on the right found McCain too centrist and opted not to vote at all, unable to quell conscience or principle into sufficient docility. So what does the conservative learn? Well obviously better to field a conservative candidate. You may lose those Powell Republicans, but clearly you will anyway. At least this way you keep more of the conservatives. A net gain.

In the context of the question about the future of the Republican party, Reaganism stands for embracing the core principles of the party as they have always been believed if not practiced. And there is, of course, much value in this. If a party doesn't stand for something what purpose does it serve? Still ...

Is this really the choice?

Is this really the crossroads the party has come to? Are we now forced to decide to move right or move left? Must we choose to ditch either Meghan or Reagan evermore? Go Gay or No Way? Moderate or Evaporate?

I don't think so. We are subject to a society which tells us that being Republican is not cool, and that being cool is important. But we are also part of a society which is occasionally able to detect cool independent of politics - think Clint Eastwood, Zo, Stephen Crowder, or even South Park - and to detect uncool as well - think Perez Hilton and Bill Richardson. Cool is a sometimes subjective term, but that pop culture paints left and right as synonymous with cool and uncool respectively is hardly in doubt. (Saved! anyone?)

We are, furthermore, in a time of dramatic upheavals, made all the more dramatic by that ever-presence of media. It is in such times that the conservative message can find a sympathetic ear, just as it did when Reagan rose, if we can but sing in the proper pitch.

I suggest that the choice before us is a false choice. It is a decision put forth by a cynical and increasingly big-government left, which is bent on the destruction of Republicans as a political force, and the marginalization of conservatism as a political movement. It's a choice that some on the right have been fooled into believing is our last and most vital decision. But I don't buy it.

We can reach the Meghans, and we can keep the Reagans. As Joshua Treviño has shown, and polls continue to show, support for Republican and conservative ideals is still strong in this nation. We aren't, in other words, using the wrong sheet of music, we're singing just off-key. But I've run out of space and will have to elaborate in part three.

This is a three-part series. In part one, I explained that the Republican party was being cynically declared dead by Democrats and left-pundits. In part two, we've looked at Meghan vs. Reagan as two paths forward for the GOP. In part three, I'll put forth my modest opinion on how Republicans can reach Meghan without scrapping Reagan.