In the recent USA Today article titled "5 reasons the GOP faces an uphill climb in '08," political scientist and historian Allan Lichtman outlines 13 keys to success in any presidential race. Of these, six have already been determined — the war in Iraq, the enthusiasm gap, the desire for change, the number of registered party members, the amount of money raised, and the back and forth exchange of the White House since 1948 — all tilt in favor of the Democrats. But after watching the Democratic presidential debate and comparing it to that of the Republicans, I think one important factor that Allan Lichtman neglected to outline is America's desire for less government spending.

Although neo-conservatism has shifted from the philosophy of fiscal responsibility to sudden out-of-control spending in the last few years, I believe that the Republican Party still has the opportunity to show America it is the party of fiscal conservatism. However, the opportunity is waning.

Not once did either debate moderator address the question, "How do you intend to deal with America's $8 trillion budget deficit, not all of which has been caused by the war?" Instead, the Democrats conveyed their message loud and clear — we want to boost social programs and install a system of universal health care — neither of which appears to focus on eliminating our nation's budget deficit. Meanwhile, the Republican candidates spent their time conveying their commitment to social issues such as overturning Roe v. Wade and reducing crime — admittedly important issues, but not the most relevant.

I find that one of the ironies of the Republican presidential debate is the number of candidates claiming to be "Reagan Conservatives." When asked, "How would you fix the mistakes of the current administration?" not one candidate's answer included lowering government spending. However, Sam Brownback, a senator from Kansas, a long shot by many standards, offered a bit of hope. He said, "We've got to come up with big ideas, broad overarching ideas that are appealing to all Americans." This sounds reminiscent of someone who was the face of the GOP in the 1990s. He was Time's man of the year in 1995, and he fervently fought President Bill Clinton's lax fiscal policies to create the largest federal surplus our government has ever seen. I'm alluding to Mr. Newt Gingrich and the "Contract with America."

Whether Mr. Gingrich will run for president in 2008 is a different story. However, I do believe that if any Republican is to succeed President Bush in office, he must vow to adhere to something like the contract. Most of the Contract with America was taken verbatim from President Reagan's 1985 State of the Union. Ironically, most of the contract — less government spending, lower taxes, less government corruption, smaller government and a balanced budget — seems wholly foreign to Capitol Hill since Mr. Gingrich's resignation from the speaker position in 1999.

So, although the Republican presidential debate took place in the Reagan National Library, few candidates stressed their commitment to fiscal conservatism last Thursday — something that sends me into a state of perplexity. Candidates must do more than just say they are a "Reagan Conservative," because although it may be tasteful political rhetoric, I, along with much of America, am beginning to doubt that many neo-conservatives remember what it means to be a true "Reagan Conservative." Republican candidates cannot rely on voter postulation that the neo-conservatives are the party of less government spending. Mr. John McCain, someone who has always vehemently opposed wasteful pork-barrel spending, said Thursday, "I will veto the first pork bill that comes across my desk as president and make the authors of that pork famous around America." This is a step in the right direction, but Sen. McCain's promise is heavily contingent upon the line-item veto bill currently being debated in Congress. If the Republicans are to win the White House in 2008 — regardless of who ultimately ends up on the party ticket — they had better learn how to tame the "leviathan on the right" that has usurped and hijacked the conservative name.

Ryan Berg ([email protected]) is a freshman majoring in political science.