It is not unreasonable to see the race for the Republican Party's presidential nomination eventually boiling down to the two men currently atop the national GOP polls, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson. But if this happens, it will be a contest between more than just the men. It will be a battle between two distinctly different political philosophies.

In a New York Daily News article written by the paper's Senior Correspondent David Saltonstall last month, we learned about some of former Mayor Giuliani's closest advisors:

They are officially known as Rudy Giuliani's senior foreign policy advisory board, but they also could be dubbed something else: Neocons For Rudy.

Included in the group Saltonstall describes are neoconservative heavyweights Norman Podhoretz and Daniel Pipes, among others.

Conservative think tanker Irwin Stelzer is with the Hudson Institute:

"I think Giuliani has a reasonable claim to the neoconservative mantle," said Stelzer. "And Norman is in the position to put the crown on anyone's head."

I find it interesting that Rudy is taking foreign policy advice from neoconservatives, is less than conservative on some social issues and has a record of being soft on illegal immigration. Is it just me, or does anyone else see George W. Bush Lite here?

In The Decline and Fall of American Conservatism, C. Bradley Thompson quotes Nathan Glazer, who "has stated publicly that the differences between socialists and neoconservatives are greatly exaggerated. In fact, he says, they 'agree on more and more'":

"It is very hard for us to define what it is that divides us, in any centrally principled way. We might, depending on which socialists, and which neoconservatives are arguing, disagree about the details or the scope of health insurance plans; or about the level of taxation that should be imposed upon corporations; or how much should be going into social security. . . . But where are the principles that separate us?"

Where, indeed.

Neocons agree with the underlying moral principles of the socialists; they disagree merely over the best means to achieve their shared ends. As do all good socialists, neocons hold that welfare should be regarded as a right because it is grounded in people’s 'needs'—and, as Kristol explains, for the neocons, 'needs' are synonymous with rights:

"In our urbanized, industrialized, highly mobile society, people need governmental action of some kind if they are to cope with many of their problems: old age, illness, unemployment, etc. They need such assistance; they demand it; they will get it. The only interesting political question is: How will they get it?"

The neocons rhetorically hide their fundamental moral commitments, for example, to satisfy people’s 'needs' — in the guise of pragmatism, for example, by insisting that the only meaningful question to ask is 'How?'

In an essay published several years ago in The Wall Street Journal, [Irving] Kristol joined many liberals and socialists in characterizing Bill Clinton’s 'two years and out' welfare proposal for able-bodied welfare recipients as 'cruel' 'unfair,' and 'ruthless.' Kristol also described the likelihood that the proposed Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act would actually pass in Congress and then work in practice as a 'fantasy.' Well, the fantasy became reality, and Clinton’s welfare reform legislation has been a moderate success story. Do not expect such success stories from advocates of a conservative welfare state.

How does a conservative welfare state work? And how does it differ from a liberal welfare state? The neocons advocate a strong central government that provides welfare services to all people who need them while, at the same time, giving people choice about how they want those services delivered. That is what makes it 'conservative,' they argue. That is how the neocons reconcile Adam Smith and Karl Marx, Hayek and Trotsky...

It is the neoconservatives and compassionate conservatives who have put the Republican Party on the chopping block. Big government and tax cuts without reduced spending are helping to run this country right into the ground and are key ingredients in the Kryptonite Kool Aid which is slowly weakening the party of Jefferson, Lincoln, Goldwater and Reagan. Like a cartoon coyote in a sheepdog suit, many neocons/compassioncons are socialists masquerading as conservatives.

If Rudy Giuliani will indeed be the heir to the neoconservative mantle, then he and his backers must be stopped before they destroy both the Republican Party and this republic. Our founders, who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to establish this nation asked only of future generations that we keep it. We cannot long preserve a republic led by proponents of a political philosophy as bankrupt and misguided as that which begat the Siamese twins of neoconservatism and compassionate conservatism.

The solution to the problems brought on by the fauxcons can be found in the "New Federalism" of Ronald Reagan. Reagan's mantle as leader of the new federalist movement now rests with Fred Dalton Thompson, who is its leading proponent. Thompson prefers the politically non-threatening tag of "mainstream" conservatism to describe a conservatism that is guided by Reagan's first principles. "Mainstream" conservatism directly descends from Burke, while George W. Bush's "compassionate" conservatism, cojoined as it is with neoconservatism, traces its roots to disaffected liberals and the socialists they once so admired. Whether we call it federalsim, new federalism or mainstream conservatism, Reagan's philosophy in practice is what set the nation on a sure and steady course, rescued it from the Carter years of malaise and strengthened it enough to even survive eight years of the Clintons in the White House. But what the Clintonistas failed to finish, the neo/compassionate cons are determined to conclude.

Under George H. W. Bush, new federalism and some other key Reagan conservative principles were gradually abandoned. But it was his son George W. who allowed the neocons to have unprecedented power in his administration and to subsequently bring the GOP to its knees. This republic can ill afford to be brought to the brink of ruin at the hands of the "neosocialists" of either major political party.

Though he has only been in the race a relatively short time, Republicans across the country are beginning to realize that Fred Thompson, with his dedication to Ronald Reagan's federalist-based mainstream conservatism, could help to save the GOP and steer the republic back onto the course which Reagan charted for it.

That great battle brewing in the Republican Party is indeed about much more than just two men fighting for the party's presidential nomination for 2008. It will be between neo/compassionate conservatism and mainstream conservatism for the very soul of the Republican Party. The former has its roots in socialism, Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol. The latter has bloodlines rooted in movement conservatism, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Like so many of my fellow disaffected Republicans are now doing, I choose the latter.

Eight years of big government, big spending and a failure to secure our borders here at home have served to disconnect many Americans - not just conservatives - from the compassioneo way of doing things. I firmly believe that Ronald Reagan's coalition of "mainstream" conservatives, conservative libertarians, independents and Reagan Democrats can be put back together by Fred Thompson to propel himself to the GOP nomination and into the White House.

Keep this in mind as you watch his young campaign develop and grow. Don't lend too much creedence to the nitpicking and drive-by attacks. Don't focus, as the media does, on process. Keep your eye on the policy positions that Thompson, guided by Reagan's first principles, stakes his political future on.

- Josh Painter