See? Glasses DO Make People Look Smart!

In a magical time long ago, Republican candidates may have been chosen based on their adherence to the conservative principles of little government and traditional values, or their ability to articulate such principles. But somehow, it appears that the GOP is now more interested in candidates who can prove that they're tougher, meaner, and more eager to bomb third-world countries than the rest. Principle is firmly buckled in the back-seat, chutzpah takes the wheel and pseudo-conservatives like Rudy Giuliani reign supreme.

I've written previously about Giuliani's liberalism, a fact which has been widely discussed in both the old and new media. But over the past few months, Giuliani has displayed a Teflon-like resistance to this criticism, maintaining his lead in the polls. The reason for this is becoming clear: a lot of Republicans just want a tough-talking alpha-male, and Giuliani is THE tough-talking alpha-male. Sure, his rhetoric about expanding domestic surveillance, enacting a national ID card and suchlike are completely anti-conservative in nature, but as long as it proves that he's got the "resolve" to fight terrorism, it doesn't matter. And who cares if he's been divorced twice, is estranged from his kids, and supports public funding for abortion? I mean, at least he's not Hillary, right? Yes, Rudy isn't Hillary, but a vote for either is a vote for big government; the choice is only whether you want a welfare state or a police state.

Here's an idea: how about choosing neither?

A tragic example of the GOP's choice of tough-talk over solid conservative reasoning occurred in the second debate. It was the most talked about moment of the day: Giuliani's "smackdown" of Ron Paul. Essentially, Ron Paul suggested that America's interventionist foreign policy in the Middle East could have contributed to the hatred of America that led to the attacks on September the 11th. Whether or not you agree with that assessment, it's one that's been supported by dozens of experts, and at the very least it deserves some substantive debate. But instead of presenting rational arguments against Ron Paul's point, Giuliani basically told the audience that Paul's statement was outrageous and that he should take it back. No reasoning, no logic, just an elementary school-esque "I'm right, you're wrong". Did anybody care? No; The crowd went wild, conservative pundits tripped over themselves to see who could heap the most ridicule on Congressman Paul, and everyone declared Rudy Giuliani the winner of the debate. It didn't matter that no real debate on the issue occurred: Rudy Giuliani was the macho conservative who took a stand against the terrorists, Ron Paul was the weak, appeasing, liberal, and that was that.

Another (slightly less severe) example of the Republican obsession with form over substance is the popularity of soon-to-be candidate Fred Thompson. While Fred Thompson isn't a bad candidate, and is definitely more conservative than Rudy Giuliani, the excitement surrounding him is only partially because of his conservative views, and certainly not because of his government experience (1-1/2 terms in the Senate). In fact, on the issues, Thompson is pretty close to McCain (Thompson was a strong supporter of McCain in the 2000 election), and there are already candidates with better or equal conservative credentials in the race (Brownback, Hunter, etc.). What really gets most people fired up about Fred Thompson is the fact that he's got a gruff southern voice, drives around in a big pick-up truck, towers over the other candidates at a commanding 6 foot 5+ inches, has played powerful authority figures in movies and television shows, and delivers aggressive rhetoric on the issue of "Islamic-fascism". For a lot of people in the GOP, it's more important to have a "cowboy president" than a truly conservative president.

There isn't anything particularly wrong with having a straight-talking, tough, charismatic man in the oval office (Reagan, anyone?). However, there is something wrong when those qualities are confused with sound reasoning and conservative principles. While there are occasions when black-and-white "axis of evil" rhetoric is required, conservatives need to realize that some situations (such as the current war in Iraq) are very complicated and that nuance isn't a dirty word. When aggression, strength, and machismo are valued above all else, you end up with a dictator in office. I don't think any Republicans want that, but if candidates like Giuliani, who embody power detached from principle, continue to succeed, we may find ourselves traveling down that path.