Not too long ago I had the opportunity to head to SoCal to visit Disneyland and escape the bubble for a couple days. As it turns out Mr. Disney and I share a common bond: an admiration of our sixteenth president. Indeed, the first ride as one enters the world famous park is titled “An Evening with Mr. Lincoln.” Patrons are invited to take on the role of a young soldier and meet President Lincoln face to face. After the 15 minute experience, I have to admit, I was moved on many levels. Lincoln faced the collapse of our bold experiment in democracy, yet he stood firm in the face of criticism. And, as many have noted, he was the first Republican president.

In reflecting on the Republican Party of today, what values have we maintained and what values have been lost in the fray of politics and a changing world? Are we the party of “free soil, free labor, free speech, free men?” I think if I were to summarize the reasons for my party affiliation, it might be encapsulated in a word: liberty. Republicans stand for limited government, limited intervention, equality, and the precedence of the individual over the collective. So why, then, has the Republican Party of today become so entrenched in the fight in favor of intervention?

I’m not talking about controversial topics such as abortion and gay marriage; I’m talking about crusades to block evolution from being taught in school. I’m talking about “abstinence-only” education. These are not questions of morality, but of the free exchange of information. While I may personally believe in abstinence, there is no reason to prevent the exchange and dissemination of various perspectives, so long as they are presented fairly and in context. I think that when it comes to issues related to personal issues such as sex, the only reasonable long-term solution is to present all perspectives. In fact, I would go so far as to say that to prevent the dissemination of opposing perspectives is to deny our constitutional right to freedom of speech and therefore un-American. Does that mean teaching fourth graders the intricacies of the female orgasm? No. It means having a reasonable dialog at a reasonable age in a reasonable tone in a reasonable setting.

Along similar lines, the Republican Party of 2005 also appears to have developed a craving for consolidated federal power. Where the traditional line of Republicans was “leave it to the states,” the modern line appears to be “let government fix it.” President Bush signed the controversial Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, greatly enhancing government’s hand in market regulation. Farm subsidies have nearly doubled in the last ten years and are currently at an all time high. Bush supported the largest expansion in Medicare since its inception with his prescription drug benefit. He oversaw an increase in government spending of more than 22% in his first four years. Though many attribute the current deficits to the President’s military buildup following September 11th, many overlook Bush’s large increases of over 20% in discretionary spending on the domestic front.

I was talking withn in Medicare since its inception with his prescription drug benefit. He oversaw an increase in government spending of more than 22% in his first four years. Though many attribute the current deficits to the President’s military buildup following September 11th, many overlook Bush’s large increases of over 20% in discretionary spending on the domestic front. a friend tonight about the Iraq War and he summarized his position as being in line with the “traditional Republican Party line.” He went on to explain that Republicans have traditionally been averse to bold foreign policy. I suppose it is true that Gerald Nye, Robert Taft, and other Republicans maintained strong isolationist views throughout the 30’s and 40’s. Yet it would be an overstatement to say that isolationism is central to the Republican Party platform. I don’t see Gen. Eisenhower as particularly isolationist. Indeed, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, idol of Democrats everywhere, was at one time a champion of isolationism and neutrality.

The criticisms from the left never seem to stop: Republicans are environmental pigs, Republicans are racist, Republicans are war-mongers, Republicans are greedy, etc. But is that really our party’s record? It was a Republican that founded the EPA. It was a Republican that established the Clean Air Act. It was a Republican congress that passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was a Republican that set the ball in motion for the SALT weapons treaties. It was a Republican that oversaw the end of the Civil War, Vietnam and the Cold War. And, just to finish my rant, the top 25 most charitable states, in terms of percentage giving of income, all voted Republican in the last election. In short, Republicans have a long and distinguished history of taking bold steps that are looked upon favorably in hindsight.

So what, then, can I make of the Republican Party of today? Have we lost our way? Well, in some venues, such as the aforementioned positions on evolution and sex education, I think we have. However, it also becomes clear that many of the shining achievements of the Republican Party have not fit within the rigid framework of broad labels such as “limited government.” I submit that there is, however, one principle that I may have overlooked earlier: innovation. Sometimes party principles must flex, but not necessarily break, in order to provide for innovation. Lincoln saw a world without slavery that also meant a federal grab of power. Eisenhower saw that the might of the federal government was necessary to enforce desegregation. Most recently, Reagan saw that ending Communism might mean temporary deficits. Along similar lines, I believe President Bush may be bending traditional party lines in order to achieve a victory in the War on Terror. To the chagrin of most liberals, Bush may be the most progressive president America has seen in 50 years. President Bush’s agenda on social security and tax reform are some of the boldest moves made by a president in modern times. Bush has called out evil where it lies and has stood firm in his belief that a stable Iraq will produce a free and peaceful middle east.

In the past two years, Iraq and Afghanistan had their first elections ever (unless you count Saddam’s “victory” as an election). Saudi Arabia has also vowed to have its first municipal elections ever in which it is likely that women will be allowed the same right to vote as men. Egypt, though technically a democracy, has taken its first steps towards a multiple-party system. President Bush became the first president to advocate a free Palestine, and following the recent elections there, the prospect for a free democratic society is more brilliant that it has been in years. Following large pro-democracy demonstrations in Beruit, the pro-Syrian government in Lebanon was forced to resign. Will Bush’s bold steps be successful? Only time will tell. Yet, there is something to be said for bold action in the face of what appears to be non-stop criticism. Lincoln, Eisenhower and Reagan all faced it and yet history has remembered them as visionaries. One thing, however, is clear. There is only one side to be on when it comes to the War on Terrorism. Liberals are taking a gamble in banking on the failure of Bush’s bold vision. As one of the The Stanford Review’s recent guests put it at the alumni reunion, “If President Bush is successful in Iraq, he will be remembered as one of the greatest presidents of all time.” We will see if history bears this out.