Ross Douthat has some solid thoughts on what it means to be in and out of power:

I think there's some truth to the underlying idea, which is that paleoconservatism tends to display the weaknesses you would expect from an intellectual movement that hasn't held power, in any meaningful way, in God knows how long - specifically, a tendency to advance ideas without any regard whatsoever to their practicality, to condemn others for making compromises without pausing the consider the constraints and difficulties involved, and to obsess endlessly over battles that were lost a long time ago. Obviously, movements that are in power tend to succumb to precisely the opposite temptations, accepting an endless series of moral compromises as "the price of power" or "just the way things are," which is why a little Old Right purism can feel like a breath of fresh air in the era of Jack Abramoff and company.

This may even be more true of libertarians. I think that one of the biggest problems with conservatives is that it's so difficult for them to govern on the abstract positions that get them elected. People have a much bigger stomach for "limited government" during an election than they do when they're about to see a social program cut. Those areas where they can get the public on board, a simpler tax code, say, the vested interests in opposition are too great to overcome and the issue so complex that the public loses interests. Liberals sort of have the opposite problem, wherein it's difficult to campaign on bigger government in the abstract but a large number of the places that they'd spend money do have not-inconsiderable support. Of course they'd been potbanging on the deficit as the party out of power usually does and even if they get the presidency in 2008 it won't be easy to deliver in conjunction with their other promises.

So voters are left with a degree of dissonance between what the guy they're going to vote for is campaigning on and what they will be able to do (and what they will spend political capital on) when they get into office. Most specifically in the area of conservatives and smaller government, it's reached the point beyond which cognitive dissonance can bridge the gap. It polls well and there is a deep philosophical rationale for lesser government, but we're way beyond the point where we can consider it plausible.

The question is whether or not Republicans can jettison that idea in favor of market-driven governance. The ownership society is still preferable to me over the Democratic alternative and I would actually feel better about knowing what might happen if "my guy" gets elected. On the other hand a conversation with some conservatives that are committed to smaller government (at least economically) over all else leads me to believe that for every voter like me that they feel more comfortable, they might lose voters like him.

Right now one of my primary discomforts with Fred Thompson is that he's still singing the praises of smaller government. While I'm generally behind that idea, it doesn't tell me very much about what kind of government he will throw his weight behind once he gets into office and the ideal of lesser government evaporates. Whatever his faults have been in 2000 Bush at least managed to answer that question and for the most part has actually tried to implement those ideas (faith-based initiative, privatizing social security, market-based expansion like Medicare Plan D). At least with Mitt Romney and his ill-fated universal coverage plan in California I have an idea of how he would go about government expansion. But a lot of the candidates are hiding behind the idea that we will just make government smaller.

The biggest issue for me is health care. I'm not looking for someone that is against government meddling in it even if the government should meddle in it. People are so dissatisfied with the system something is going to happen with it over the next ten years. Some sort of at least semi-comprehensive reform will take place. I am worried about how exactly the Democrats will go about it if they're given the opportunity. So I'm looking for a Republican that will initiate enough reform to take the issue off the table. I have my own ideas as to which proposals would be preferable over others, but it's hard to gauge where the candidates stand in a primary where the voters and activists that matter the most don't want to hear that they will do anything. Once the general election rolls around the Republican nominee will likely come up with something, but I'd like to know what they will come up with before I vote in the primary.