Here’s how Ramesh Ponnuru frames the debate:
Since Ponnuru’s argument ends up by siding with Limbaugh and the traditionalists, it’s curious that he should define the argument in a way that does such damage to his own “team”. After all, on each of these issues the reformers are more in tune with public opinion than the traditionalists. Nor are any of the reformers ideas obviously “unconservative”.The traditionalists push for upper-income tax cuts. The reformers want to cut the payroll taxes paid by the middle class. Traditionalists often deny that global warming is real. Reformers just want to make sure that our answer to it is cost-effective. The traditionalists want to hold the line on government spending. The reformers think that it’s more important for Republicans to advocate market-friendly solutions to problems such as rising health-care costs and traffic congestion.
Ponnuru then argues that David Brooks, David Frum et al still need Rush Limbaugh and his followers.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in