The New Face of the GOP doesn’t Necessarily Include Romney… But it does Reagan?

What's Old is New Again

Jonathan Martin writes that when asking the rising stars of the GOP about their party’s future two names come up, neither of which is Mitt Romney.   One of them, Ronald Reagan, was born in 1911 and the other, Paul Ryan, was born in 1970.  “Neither Romney, born in 1947 or the once politically ascendant baby boomers he represents are central to the conversation about what direction the party takes in the years ahead.”  This relegates Romney to the status of a placeholder in the party.  He’s not heralding some sort of new political movement nor is he taking the party in any sort of radical direction.  Mitt Romney just… is.

As the next generations of leaders look at the status of the GOP, they see George W. Bush’s compassionate conservatism as so 2000’s.  Re-embracing a republican platform based on core conservative values is what the view is now.  Reagan’s conservative philosophy, like that old-time religion is sweeping the up-and-comers.  The free-market orthodoxy that is being preached by Ryan is fast becoming the (old) new gospel.  Politicians like Marco Rubio are at the forefront of this change.  “Sometimes we may think that we are being compassionate by creating a new program or agency but in fact we are getting in the way” Rubio stated. 

Reagan, obviously not a member of Generation X, has become a sort of messiah to this next group of leaders.  His no-nonsense ‘pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps’ fiscal conservatism appeals to a group of people that came of age during the hard times of the early 1990’s and the even harder times of the mid to late 2000’s.  They saw their party split between moderates and ultra-conservatives, the saw Bush the II diminish their party and philosophies like Newt Gingrich’s ‘Contract with America’ as passé.  I bet that Reagan himself would never have guessed his name would have been the battle cry for a revolution within the GOP some 30 years after his Presidency.

At the end of it all, by tapping Ryan as his running-mate, Romney is the one that, probably unwittingly, put this revolution into motion.  “Romney… hastened the transition to the new guard and may have ensured that his own legacy draws from his ticketmates ideas” states Martin.  By doing this, win or lose, Paul Ryan will come out leading this party.  Ryan could be the first ‘New Republican’ which would make Mitt Romney, again unwittingly, the father of the ‘New Republicans’ by being the one that foisted the potentially new standard bearer into public view. 

Given all of this, the best thing that could happen to the GOP would be an Obama second term.  By losing, the GOP could clear out what’s left of the old guard and make room for what comes next, the Ryan’s, the Rubio’s, the Christie’s and the like.  Romney, unfortunately for him, brought his party to the edge of the Promised Land but he could lead them in.  I guess he angered someone… maybe Pat Robertson?