Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose... or something like that.

I like Newt Gingrich. Really. Yeah, the guy is an incorrigible fountain of often nutty ideas, but he has the courage of his convictions, whatever they might happen to be at any given moment, and unlike 99% of those who have ever been elected to any political office whatever, he’s interesting to listen to. So, for example, when Newt (we were once at the same party when he was still Speaker, so I call him “Newt” and he calls me “Who?”) says there is a political lesson to be learned from the recent French election, I’m interested. Here’s what he says:

In France, voting for change meant voting for the party in office, but not the personality in office. And voting to keep the old order meant voting for the opposition, not for the incumbent party.

This is, I take it, supposed to encourage Republicans to believe that if they offer a bold vision of change they have some hopes of hanging on to the White House in 2008. And Newt, let’s face it, knows something about bold visions of change. Still, Republican presidential hopefuls with any chance whatsoever of getting nominated (sorry, Dr. Paul and, for that matter, Newt) face certain obstacles in adopting this strategy.

First, short of renouncing entirely the big spending domestic programs the Republican’s have enacted in the last six years ("We're sorry we did it and we promise to stop stealing so much from you next time!"), there isn’t all that much on the domestic front Republicans can campaign on and still sound like Republicans. As always, voters don’t want program cuts; they only want tax and spending cuts.

Bush, to his credit, took a whack at Social Security and failed miserably. Voters may still balk at Hillary-Care, but if Republicans have any politically viable plan to reform health care, they’re keeping it better hidden than Nixon’s Secret Plan for Viet Nam. Basically, in other words, the Republican Party has bupkis to offer in terms of bold change on the domestic front.

Then there’s foreign policy. Let’s face it, the current mood in America is to withdraw troops from Iraq, let it go to hell in the handbag it seems destined to leap into at the first opportunity anyway and finally catch that bin Laden guy who used to be in the news all the time. Maybe that’s the right thing to do, maybe it’s the smart thing to do, and maybe not, but it’s pretty much where the average voter is at this point, anyway.

Well, guess what? There’s already a whole other political party gearing up to run on that position and it ain’t the Republicans. Oh sure, Hillary Clinton is staking out the moderate ground on that one for the moment, and that’s the smart thing for a female candidate to do for now; but if the polls keep heading south on Iraq, she’ll be on board with the withdrawal as soon as she can figure out a way to spin it so she doesn’t look weak by doing so. In short, if America wants out of Iraq – and it does – it doesn’t need a Republican to get the job done.

So sorry, Newt. I’m not saying the Democrats are sure to win the White House in 2008, although I think it’s still most likely at this point. Heck, it isn’t as though the Democrats have offered much yet besides not being Republicans and the elections are still a political light-year away. But if Americans do want significant political change in 2008, and except for a couple of key issues I’m not at all sure they do, they’re not likely even to look for it, let alone find it this time around in the Republican Party.