[Ed. This is a post from my "Alexham" archives over at RedState. I am reposting it here because I believe the overall message of the post needs to be restated before we gather together for the national convention in September.]

I can still remember the day after the 1994 midterm elections. It was an unusually sunny day in the Southland, and all seemed right with the world. After all of those years in the wilderness, the Republicans had finally taken control of the House, and soon thereafter, the Senate. We would do things differently, we promised. We were a different kind of political party. Unlike the Democrats, who only care for power for power’s sake, we sought power to make a profound difference in the lives of every-day Americans.

How different things look thirteen years later. Somewhere along the line, we lost our way. I think most Republicans instinctively know this, but have trouble articulating exactly when things began to unravel for our party. What we do know is that the Republican Party is at crossroads. We are a party in search of an identity, and the path we choose will have long-term ramifications not only for the GOP, but for these United States.

Now, I could spend a great deal of time rehashing the past and pointing fingers (and part of me would like to do just that), but where would that get us? No, it is time to move on, bury past grudges, and decide who we are as a party. But in order to do that, we have to get past the acrimony that currently exists in our own party between fiscal/foreign-policy conservatives and social conservatives. Because if we don’t, then we most certainly will set up shop again in the wilderness, and if that happens there is the distinct possibility that we won’t be returning to power any time soon.

So, let’s get down to brass tacks, and begin to address this family dispute before we pass the point of no return and hand the presidential election to the dems.

And before I begin, let me be clear: This is not about Rudy. It concerns him, but our problem extends far beyond the viability of his candidacy. It goes to the core of who we are as a party. I think I’ve always known this, but somewhere along the way, I allowed myself to get caught up in the personalities involved, and developed a personal animus toward Mayor Giuliani. For that, I apologize. So, let’s start fresh; or as that woman would say, “Let’s talk.”

In my view, it is crucial that the Republican Party remain unambiguously prolife. As others here at RedState have noted, there are three major principles the GOP has stood for during its ascendancy: (1) promoting family values and protecting innocent life; (2) personal and national defense; and (3) fiscal responsibility. If one of these core beliefs is compromised or denigrated from within, then the coalition of Americans who comprise the Republican Party will almost certainly come undone.

And this brings us to the candidacy of Mayor Giuliani. Now, I know I just said this post wouldn’t be about Rudy, and it really isn’t; but it is his candidacy that has brought this internal rift to the surface, so I have no choice but to speak about our differences in this context. I will, however, endeavor to do so in a respectful manner.

Let me begin by noting that I understand why so many of my fellow Republicans are attracted to Rudy Giuliani as a candidate. For all of his faults, Rudy is an intelligent and charming man, who exudes leadership, authority, and confidence. And his performance during one of this country’s most tragic moments was nothing short of Churchillian. Unfortunately, his public record and statements on core “Culture of Life” issues causes social conservatives great concern. I know there are counterarguments to this (e.g., he will appoint originalist judges/justices), but the fact of the matter is that this is a man who fundamentally disagrees with social conservatives on one of the party’s core principles. Needless to say, this is a serious problem. As Father Neuhaus recently noted:

The question of the dignity of the human person is rightly understood as a political question. It is inescapably a political question . . . . The most consequential political event of the past half-century in the United States was the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions of January 1973 . . . . The moral question is not, as the court majority [in each case] claimed, about when a human life begins. That is a biological and medical question on which there is no serious dispute. The moral question can be put this way: At what point in its existence ought we, to recognize that a human life should be protected in law? . . . . That moral question is also and unavoidably a political question. One might make the case that it is the most fundamental of political questions. If politics is deliberating how we ought to order our life together [see Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics and Politics, both discourses on morality], there can hardly be a more basic question than this: Who belongs to the we?

And this, my Republican brothers and sisters, is why so many social conservatives have trouble accepting the prospect of Rudy Giuliani representing the Republican Party in the 2008 presidential race. For all of his strengths, Mayor Giuliani is a man who holds a contrary view on what many of us believe to be the “most fundamental of political questions.” As you might expect, that is difficult for many of us to overlook.

I think I speak for many social conservatives when I say to Rudy’s supporters that we understand and respect your belief that Mayor Giuliani is uniquely qualified to serve as this nation’s commander-in-chief in a post-9/11 world. We also understand and appreciate the threat that radical Islam poses to the continued well being of our constitutional republic. But for many of us, survival, in and of itself, should not be government’s primary objective. We believe that what matters far more is who we are and what we stand for as a people. For me, what makes us different as a country is that so many Americans believe in the fundamental dignity of every human life, from conception until natural death. Unfortunately, Mayor Giuliani does not share this view. That doesn’t mean he is evil, but I do think it demonstrates that he is deeply misguided when it comes to one of our party’s core principles.

I recognize, of course, that the Republican Party is a big tent, and that there are those within our party who hold different views on abortion and other “Culture of Life” issues; but there is a difference between being in a party and leading it. And I think even those who don’t share our views can certainly understand why social conservatives are so concerned about the prospect of Rudy leading the party, and the long-term implications that will result from him serving in that capacity. Indeed, think of it this way: Would it be acceptable for the Republican Party to nominate as its presidential candidate a man or woman who: (a) favored raising taxes over cutting them; and/or (b) supported gun control or immediately withdrawing our troops from Iraq? If your answer to either of these questions is no, then all I ask is that you understand why social conservatives are so adamant about having a presidential nominee who believes in the sanctity of all life.

I’ll have more to say on this, but I hope for now this will suffice to begin a dialogue between Republicans on how we can move forward as a party. As Ben has so eloquently noted, we need to “keep it together,” not only for the sake of our party, but for the sake of our country. The last thing America needs is that woman and that man back in the White House, or a “new and improved” version of George McGovern.