Which is only really “magic” in the sense that Reagan was somehow able to drag the Democrats along for the ride — and that his “formula” made the stagflation, ennui, and managed decline of the Carter years vanish into thin air!

The formula? Simple. Per Meese:

“[Reagan] reduced tax rates across the board,” said Meese. “He didn’t engage in any of this cultural warfare, class warfare that we have the president engaging in at the present time.

“Secondly, he had regulatory reform,” said Meese. “He eliminated a lot of unnecessary and burdensome regulations.

“Third,” said Meese, “he worked with the Federal Reserve to have a stable monetary policy.

“And fourth,” said Meese, “he slowed the growth of federal spending.

“Now, I think if a candidate committed himself to all four of those things, this is the magic formula that brought back the economy–that revived the economy–in 1980 and 81 and the years that followed, and started the longest period of economic growth in the history of the country,” said Meese.

“That’s what our candidates ought to be doing,” said Meese.

What I liked most about Michele Bachmann’s campaign was her emphasis on both reducing compliance costs and repealing Obamacare, two immediate reforms that would get the economy growing. Of the remaining candidates, most give lip service to adopting Reagan’s formula, and yet Romney defends the individual mandate, Newt proposes government and private sector alliances, Paul’s foreign policy seems to be “peace through pretending,” Santorum gives special dispensation to the manufacturing sector, and Huntsman worked for Obama.

So we’re in a bit of a purity pickle.

Going forward, my own belief is that we needn’t worry about who is “electable” — because that will be determined by who gets the most votes, and who gets the most votes will be determined by which candidate’s message best resonates, not by which candidate has been predetermined to appear best while delivering a tepid, careful message; instead, we need to worry about who will pursue a truly conservative path toward limited government — with the caveat that he will likewise maintain a strong national defense and is committed to the securing of our borders: Illegal immigration is becoming a civil rights issue for US citizens who, because they are having their votes diluted and their tax monies used to fund safety nets for illegals whom the federal government refuses to police, are becoming increasingly marginalized as owners of the government. And maintaining a strong national defense is one of the few powers actually granted to the federal government, and while one can quibble over the placement of bases and the like for strategic interest, what one can’t quibble over is the need to maintain our military superiority in order to maintain its power as deterrent.

From my point of view, the GOP is trying desperately to foist upon us the least conservative candidate. And watching putative conservatives rally behind this candidate out of fear that an actual conservative can’t win a general election is demoralizing, precisely because the same people seem to fall for the same self-fulfilling prophecy every four years — every time assuring themselves that having a Republican in office is at least better than having a Democrat, then claiming that the only way to achieve such an arrangement is to back the Republican who would most closely govern like a Democrat.

Ironic, isn’t it?