This presidential administration is so determined to build a border fence that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, with the authorization of Congress, is busy waiving more than thirty laws in order to see it built quickly. Republicans, in general, seem to favor a border fence. My question is, why?

Of course I’m well acquainted with the arguments, as I suspect you are, so I won’t address them in detail: maintaining our national culture, remaining a country which abides by the rule of law, ensuring procedural fairness vis-à-vis legal immigrants, and protecting American jobs. These are all principles supported by the Republican Party and conservatives alike. But I must admit, I’m still a little flummoxed.

It’s not that I don’t support those principles—I most certainly do. In fact, no one is more supportive of the maintenance of our American culture than I am, nor are you likely to find someone who takes a harder line on rule of law issues. Likewise, I believe that the immigrants who have come to America legally should reap the benefits of their actions and I have nothing but the greatest optimism about the state of the American job market when it is allowed to innovate and operate unencumbered by excessive regulation.

So where, you ask, is my problem? It’s the hypocrisy of the approach. Isn’t the Republican Party supposed to be party of small federal government? Isn’t the GOP supposed to be the party of personal responsibility and accountability? Aren’t Republicans likely to eschew a government solution to problems that can be fixed by personal behavior?

The answers to these questions are historically yes.

I’d like to reiterate two principles that I think ought to guide the behavior of the federal government. First, government should facilitate its citizens doing the right thing. Second, as Ronald Reagan liked to say, government should protect us from each other but not protect us from ourselves. Having said that, the immigration problem begins with us. We--individual families, small business owners, and corporations—have created a market for illegal immigrants by hiring them. Without the ability to work and earn in our country there would be little motivation to come to America. Taking the path of least resistance, some Americans have selfishly justified their own law breaking and illegal hiring practices and, in turn, created paradigms of labor availability for their businesses and job availability for those willing to immigrate illegally to the United States.

The government’s role in today’s illegal immigration problem is that it hasn’t previously done what it must do now—enforce the laws of our country. Asking the federal government to build a border fence is asking for more government, more regulation, and more expenditure. In short, it is the type of suggestion we would normally expect from Democrats.

Going forward, the federal government can help citizens do the right thing by putting America on notice that the laws of our country will be enforced. Critics claim that this is insensitive to the illegal immigrants who have established lives here in the US. This makes as much sense as saying that if the police discovered a family of thieves, they shouldn’t return the stolen TVs and stereos to the rightful owners because the thieves had become accustomed to having them. And since there have been no crimes since the original theft, we’ll skip prosecuting the perpetrators, too.

A border fence, at best, serves only to help protect us from ourselves by slowing a supply for which we created the demand--a role Republicans and conservatives usually don’t believe the federal government should be taking on. A border fence ignores the ingenuity of properly motivated foreigners and is unlikely to stop illegal immigration for any length of time. Only when the supply of jobs is cut will illegal immigration be curbed. At which point, a previously erected border fence becomes an unnecessary eyesore, a maintenance problem, and a monument to our own lack of self-control and imagination.

This issue has become a metaphor for the laments of those Republicans who understand that the GOP has become as much a proponent of big government solutions as the Democrats. The line between the parties has blurred and Americans are left with fewer and fewer real choices.

Republicans and conservatives, as well as many Democrats, value the aforementioned principles involved in the illegal immigration issue. Despite the validity of the competing principles here, Republicans don’t do themselves any favors by not standing up for the broader and more important principles that guide the party. The concepts of limited government and personal accountability and responsibility are the principles that should guide the policies the party pursues. Some will say, “the people have spoken” and the administration is just following the wishes of the people by building the border fence. When did the US stop being a republic? We’ve elected officials, in this case a Republican administration, to do what they think is best for the country. Instead, like beleaguered parents capitulating to the demands of a petulant child who cries to get what he wants, Republican leaders are creating a new generation of party members who don’t understand the fundamental beliefs of the party and who are growing increasingly dependent on government solutions.

We must do for ourselves what government can’t do for us: we must wean ourselves off the tendency to look to the federal government to solve our problems. The Republicans have hopped on board the good ship Largesse, but we don’t have to sail with them. It’s time, as in most issues these days, for us to claim our party back from those who have forgotten what it is Republicans and conservatives want from their party leadership; and on the issue of illegal immigration another federally funded, big government program is not the solution to a problem American citizens can solve all by ourselves.

You would expect a Navy man and a pilot would understand the importance of directional control in order to achieve accurate navigation. From way up here in the cheap seats, it’s difficult to tell what kind of directional control John McCain is providing to his campaign and the development of his platform for a potential presidency. Honestly, I can’t tell if he’s floundering or plodding along. One thing seems certain though, if he doesn’t know where he’s going, he’ll never get there. Leadership is all about the destination. Where are we going? What’s the goal? Presidents must identify those answers and marshal the citizens.

Given McCain’s propensity for disassociating himself from his Republican Party during his 26 years in Congress and the Senate, historical party norms are of little help in identifying where it is he wants to take the United States. He seems very comfortable bucking party trends whenever possible, in order to be seen as different. Apparently, it’s been working, too. In a recent USA TODAY survey, 45% of the people polled described McCain as a “different kind of Republican.” Yes, I think that’s a fair assessment. It has the potential to be a very beneficial assessment, too, since Americans are rather enamored with the idea of change in 2008. Americans aren’t interested in a perpetuation of politics as usual, so McCain’s maverick image, honed since 1982, could help him to separate himself from the Bush Presidency.

Here’s the rub, though. He is flying aimlessly between the twin peaks of Mount AppealToYourBase and Independent’s Mountain. Watching him campaign, I’m left with the feeling that years of boat-rocking and anthill-kicking were the random acts of a politician who couldn’t see the forest through the trees or who simply liked to be different. There is no pattern of behavior. Campaign strategist Steve Schmidt says, “People view him as fundamentally different from what they’re sick of in Washington, which is partisanship for partisanship’s sake. The American people view him as his own man.” On the one hand he supports the war in Iraq, holding to a “the best defense is a good offense” foreign policy, and then talks about the need to engage other world leaders. Each of these positions will have supporters but the task for Senator McCain is tying the two together. The maverick career of John McCain looks to be all about establishing his credentials as being personally “different,” without attempting to advance the veracity of any unique world view, set of values or leadership style.

It’s not so much that he is flip-flopping, although he is--even if only by degrees, subtle nuances, and semantics. But he’s forced to hunt around for ideas that appease his base and yet attract independents. Expressing his policies to appease both would require great rhetorical skills and oratory deftness, neither of which he possesses in any great measure. By appearances, he is word-smithing his policy ideas in order to please everyone but in reality he is letting the whims of a greedy and entitled electorate determine his policy. With so many competing agendas, McCain sounds like a SummaCumLaude graduate from the Charlie Brown school of Policy Development. Maybe by September this will all sound less disjointed.

Senator McCain has an incredible advantage in this election given the high marks he receives from voters in both parties regarding his integrity and character. When the campaign is focused on personal qualities, McCain is the easy frontrunner. But when the campaign addresses policy he falters.

Questions abound about whether McCain can re-brand the Republican Party. Is his candidacy the first step towards changing the direction of the GOP and stripping power from those who have ascended the ranks in the last 30 years? Or is he the next in line in a succession of Reagan disciples looking to bring back the ‘80s? I suspect the answer is “C, None of the Above.” McCain looks more like a transitional Party Head who can be a caretaker of the GOP until a true heir can be identified. Which is too bad because the time has come for a New Republican torchbearer. Today, McCain is the least imperfect solution to the GOP candidacy for the presidency. His lack of a demonstrable set of values which guide his every decision though, makes it hard to imagine that he could be responsible for branding anything.

His recent tour of economically disadvantaged regions of the country had great promise, if it had been the manifestation of new Republican values championed by the Party’s candidate. Instead, it had all the meaning of a poorly attended benefit dinner. At this point, it is not what he says but why he says it. Does he believe that the poorest in America deserve his attention because he simply wants to be viewed differently than other Republicans, or do they deserve his attention because at its core conservatism values people, communities and investments in our social and economic infrastructure?

We’re about six months from Election Day. It’s time for Senator McCain to tell us where HE wants to take US and why that place is worth going to and then he needs to sell this destination to the American people.

“There’s a lush valley, America, that I’d like to take you to, somewhere between Mount AppealToYourBase and Independent’s Mountain. It sits in the shadow of majestic purple mountains, and is covered in amber waves of grain. Let me tell you more about it and how we’re going to get there.”