The True Face of the Republican Party.

There is currently an ongoing contest for the newest representative face of the Republican Party. Right now there are two main contenders: Rush Limbaugh, representing the conservative, hard core values wing of the party, and Colin Powell, representing the moderate, big tent faction.

The race is, of course, not official. Michael Steele is the Chairman of the Republican National Committee and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. But, instead the competition is being played out in the media and on the blogosphere and has been pulling some big names into the debate. Former Vice President Dick Cheney, for instance, has weighed on the Rush side. I have not heard anyone pipe up for Colin's side of the competition, but I'm sure there are many supporters out there somewhere.

The debate, of course, clouds three significance points. First, virtually all Republicans share some values with Powell and others with Limbaugh. Second, a terribly important wing of the party is missed in the debate. And third, and probably most significant, both Powell and Limbaugh have missed a vital fact: they are still debating 20th century issues while the world has moved into the 21st.

Very few Republicans (or, for that matter, Democrats) are whole-heartedly conservative or liberal, Limbaugh or Powell. Some members of the party, for instance, support abortion rights or affirmative action, while believing in free trade. Others, believe in protectionism in international trade, but believe that abortion is murder and/or affirmative action is a racist policy.

Many see the intelligence and logic behind the Powell doctrine of warfare. And many of those same people are offended by the former Secretary of States' approach to social issues.

Considering that "mix and match" approach to party politics, most Republicans would fail the litmus test of either Rush or Colin. Rush would likely frown upon those party members who see a difference between abortion in the first trimester and partial birth abortion in the third. Likewise, I can't imagine Powell taking kindly to anyone voicing the belief that racial preferences fail the "equal protection under the law" test of the constitution.

This, of course, leads me to my second point: the Libertarian wing of the Republican party is represented by neither Limbaugh nor Powell. Except for Ron Paul, this has been a neglected faction, one that is likely offended by at least some of the beliefs of both Rush and Colin. Limbaugh sees nothing wrong with imprisoning literally millions of drug offenders, while Powell quite obviously sees nothing wrong with the federal government telling employers who to hire and how much to pay them and encouraging public universities to drop color blind admissions policies.

Lastly, neither Limbaugh nor Powell seem to realize that the world has changed. International commerce now requires that Americans must be continually educated and retrained in order to compete on the world market and that requires a healthy dose of public education (a blind spot of Limbaugh). In the modern world, infrastructure is no longer limited to highways and bridges. It now means a readily accessible information highway and a highly trained work force.

Likewise, Powell believes the racial makeup of a school is more important than a meritocracy which ensures that the best and brightest are admitted. A level playing field does not necessarily mean equal representation in a college graduation class. But, it does mean offering the most capable and educated American employees to compete with foreign workers.

In summation, a debate over the "face" of the party may be a good mental exercise, just as disagreement over the party's platforms can be healthy. But, we all need to keep in mind that this particular debate may be most significant in what it reveals about the current state of the party and in what it neglects to address.