Try Again, National Review and WaPo
Ramesh Ponnuru isn't thrilled with Michael Gerson's analysis of the contemporary GOP:
Michael Gerson posits first a distinction and then a conflict between, on the one hand, the “Reform Conservatism” of Paul Ryan and a few conservative writers and, on the other, the “Rejectionist Conservatism” of. . . well, other than Ron Paul, it’s not entirely clear, but it appears to include a lot of tea partiers. I’ll grant him the distinction, but I think he both misunderstands it and exaggerates the conflict it creates.
Even if we treat fissures within the GOP like a purely dichotomic problem (which is quite problematic), Ponnuru's analysis has some problems. The first is that rejectionist conservatism (Gerson's terminology, not mine) is indeed far more ideologically ambitious than reform conservatism. The world view of Ron Paul seeks to do a lot more than just repeal ObamaCare. Paul has outlined his opposition to the New Deal, Great Society, income tax, and (as Gerson points out) pretty much everything since the founding. The ideological framework of Paul is one that seeks to restore a far more limited understanding of the capabilities of government, at least on the federal level. In that sense, the ambition of rejectionists is a tad more sweeping than the reformers.
This split is beautifully exemplified with Mitt Romney. Ironically, Gerson's framework also falls apart under such basic scrutiny. Romney has advocated for the dissolution of multiple federal departments and programs, yet on the whole is one of the technocrats who would work to streamline said programs. A President Romney is not one who would disown the New Deal or Great Society. He, like Ryan, may seek to shrink such programs, but the principles associated aren't under assault.
The second issue with Ponnuru's analysis is that it ignores the very real civil war the GOP experienced in 2010. How can we forget the Nevada Senate Primary? The Delaware Senate Race? What about the ascendancy of figures such as Rand Paul?
By minimizing the impact of rejectionist conservatives on the broader movement, Ponnuru misses the chance to inject a touch of nuance into this debate. It's quite clear that you aren't either for big government or against it. Most Americans fall somewhere in between. The same is true within the GOP.
