Mitt Romney, in his speech to the Family Research Council's Values Voters summit recently, told the assembled faithful:

I want to build a stronger military, a stronger economy, and stronger families. I call these the three legs of the Republican stool. These three unite the coalition of conservatives that Ronald Reagan championed—defense conservatives, economic conservatives, and social conservatives.

We won’t win the White House with only 2 out of 3 or 1 out of 3. Republicans win the White House by motivating all 3 parts of our coalition to carry us to victory.

Unfortunately for movement conservatives, that three-legged stool tips and falls over when its occupant leans too far in any direction. That's why the great majority of stools, chairs, tables, etc. have four legs, not three. It makes for a more stable platform. The three-legged stool also becomes much more unsteady if one of the legs is cut even a little shorter than the other two. This renders it just about useless.

For a long time, there were indeed three pillars of the Republican Party, but along came the big government, big spending neocons who had lost their sense of balance somewhere along the way. At first they cut just a little off of the economic leg of the stool. Then they cut a little more, and the stool was left so tilted that it was no longer useful. The two pieces they sawed off of the fiscal leg are lower spending and smaller government. Virtually all that remains of that orginal economic leg is lower taxes. What are movement conservatives to do about this? Should we try to pick up the pieces and glue them back on the leg?

Perhaps it would be a better idea to modify the stool so that it has four legs. We can put a new fiscal leg on the stool cut to the length of the original by putting more emphasis on lower spending. And we can invite libertarian conservatives back into the fold to help us install the fourth leg. We can call it federalism or small government or whatever we want to. Libertarian conservatives and federalists have for too long been given the short leg of the old three-legged Republican stool, and the coalition needs both of these essential parts to strengthen the whole.

The neocons and the single-issue socons have made a mess out of Ronald Reagan's coalition of conservatives. By focusing only on their own myopic views of what conservatism should mean, they have failed to show respect for the other key members of the coalition. The neocons have done this by attempting to redefine economic conservatism by ignoring the need to reduce government spending at the federal lovel. The socons have done so by virtually ignoring both economic conservatves and small government conservatives altogether. The socons have chased away many of the libertarian conservatives, and federalists have, since Reagan's death been put in the attic like some crazy aunt or uncle.

Ronald Wilson Reagan considered federalism to be a bedrock "first principle", and he committed himself to revitalizing that principle:

Of all his accomplishments, perhaps the most profound part of the Reagan legacy -- and we hope the most enduring -- was President Reagan's commitment to our nation's Constitution and its explication of federalism, though that foundation had been neglected for most of the 20th century. With the constitutional aberrations of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society well-embedded in the nation's collective consciousness, Reagan's commitment to constitutionally limited government and the pre-eminence of the states in the American system envisioned by the Founders came as a much-needed shock to the system.

Issued on 26 October 1987, President Reagan's Executive Order 12612 on federalism speaks directly to the point. Indicating federalism's "fundamental principles," Reagan wrote as crisply and cogently as Madison, Hamilton or Jay ever did: "Federalism is rooted in the knowledge that our political liberties are best assured by limiting the size and scope of the national government. ... The people of the States created the national government when they delegated to it those enumerated governmental powers relating to matters beyond the competence of the individual States. ... All other sovereign powers, save those expressly prohibited the States by the Constitution, are reserved to the States or to the people."

Unlike many of his political contemporaries, Reagan understood that the fundamental premise of American society, and that society's greatness, did not reside in, nor was it regulated by, Washington. Instead, he understood that "The people of the States are free, subject only to restrictions in the Constitution itself or in constitutionally authorized Acts of Congress, to define the moral, political, and legal character of their lives."

Likewise, the President wrote, "In most areas of governmental concern, the States uniquely possess the constitutional authority, the resources, and the competence to discern the sentiments of the people and to govern accordingly." Quoting Thomas Jefferson, Reagan added that the States are "the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies."

Never known for his integrity, constitutional or otherwise, Bill Clinton revoked EO 12612 in 1998 and replaced it with EO 13083, which largely re-justified the excessive unconstitutional role the federal government has assumed since the time of Franklin Roosevelt.

Although Reagan's executive order was re-established under the Bush administration, the President has mostly ignored it, allowing the federal leviathan to grow even larger than it did under Clinton.

The conservative movement, the Republican Party, and this republic need a president who will honor President Reagan by putting federalism back on the front burner. It should be one of that president's first principles, just as it was for Reagan.

Who among the current crop of candidates is most likely to do this, and who will balance federalist principles with social, economic and security considerations?

Not the aforementioned Mitt Romney, who doesn't understand the need for a fourth leg on the stool. As governor of Massachusetts he increased government regulation and expanded the state government bureaucracy with his RomneyCare health care plan. Not only is federalism not high on his agenda, the man doesn't even seem to understand the meaning of the term. Even if you give Romney a break on his recent adoption of a pro life view, he has made several conflicting statements on his personal use and ownership of firearms.

Not John McCain, who partnered with Ted Kennedy on an immigration bill that did more to unify conservatives in opposition to it than even the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency has done. Whether you consider illegal immigration to be a social issue or, like Fred Thompson, a security matter, McCain's bill is a deal-breaker.

Not Rudy Giuliani, who is so weak on social issues that even economic conservatives want no part of him. And it's not just abortion. It's also immigration and Second Amendment issues, plus a few more.

And not Mike Huckabee, who falls short on economic issues, earning poor reviews from the Club for Growth and the National Taxpayers Union.

It's Fred Thompson who offers the best balance for movement conservatives. On economic and small government issues, he is regarded favorably. Like most of the other leading candidates, he's strong on security matters. On social issues Fred's pro-life, but his prosposal for a consitutional amendment to prevent state judges from altering the definition of marriage without the direction of their states' legislatures falls short of the federal amendment banning gay marriage that most socons favor.

Fred's federalist principles have clearly put him at odds with many social conservatives on this one issue. Which begs the question of which tradeoffs are social conservatives willing to make? If they reject Thompson on this one issue, they will be cutting off noses to spite faces. The bar for getting any amendment incorporated into our constitution was intentionally set very high by the founders, who were so dedicated to the constitution they bequeathed us that they wanted us to think long and hard before we attempt to change it. If socons sacrifice security in exchange for promises of a federal amendment banning gay marriage, they could be making a deal which may not deliver the goods and could weaken our nation, especially at its borders. If they trade federalist principles for the same promises, they still have no guarantee of getting what they want, and they will allow the federal government to keep on growing, perhaps to the point where it can't be stopped.

In addition, they will betray one of those first principles which Ronald Reagan stood for. As J.B. Williams has pointed out:

Reagan was most conservative in the arena of national security and firm foreign policy. Reagan understood that America was the only nation in the world with the power and moral authority to defend freedom and liberty around the globe, in defense of freedom and liberty here. Reagan commanded respect across the political aisle at home and abroad and remains one of the most loved US Presidents in US history even today.

But he was somewhat liberal on social issues. Or, like Thompson, he was at least an anti-federalist who sought to return private assets and personal liberty to the states and the people at every chance.

Social conservatives need to sit down and think carefully about which candidate can bring economic, security and small government conservatives together with them to defeat the Democrats, dust off Ronald Reagan's blueprints and rebuild the Republican party and the nation. But before they sit, they should count the number of the legs on that stool and check to make sure they're all the same length. Otherwise, they might just find themselves headed for a fall.

- Josh