Politico has a reasonable article this morning on the emerging Republican presidential field, focusing on the issues that divide and distinguish the candidates. James Hohmann highlights immigration, NSA eavesdropping, Medicaid expansion, Common Core, and gay marriage as the key fault lines. He takes those issues and splices them through a potential field of: Jeb Bush (FL), Bobby Jindal (LA), Rick Perry (TX), Scott Walker (WI), Chris Christie (NJ), Ted Cruz (TX), Marco Rubio (FL), Mike Huckabee (AR), Rick Santorum (PA), John Kasich (OH), and Rand Paul (KY). The article is worth a read, though it is a bit superficial given the scope of what it attempts.

These are the trendy issues, and, perhaps, they will force the candidates to examine their basic assumptions about the size and scope of government, federalism, and the nature of the Constitution and civil liberties. Naturally, any candidate that takes the trouble to run will craft quick, simple answers and talking points on these issues and others. However, the party needs to stage events over the next two years that will demand high-level discussions as opposed to messy, loud town hall meetings that require little more than thirty seconds and a punch line. Of the current crop, how many could speak for thirty minutes, off the cuff, about their philosophy of government? How many would be willing to take a question, spend five minutes in preparation, and then speak for twenty minutes uninterrupted? How many would sit for a live, streaming interview by a panel of sharp pundits and thinkers (say Ramesh Ponnuru, Yuval Levin, Hugh Hewitt, and Eric Metaxas)? We need, in an academic sense, to examine these people in way that television does not.

Beyond what Hohmann references, Republican voters should also demand extensive, cogent arguments about the following:

• Iran and nuclear proliferation–the issue no one really wants to touch
• ISIS and the growing radical Islamic threat from non-state actors–the issue no one will be able to avoid
• Supreme Court/Judicial appointments–lip service to originalism is not enough. Candidates should describe a process by which they will make sure that quality appointments will happen.
• Legalized marijuana–the issue that may define the electorate for libertarians and young voters
• The Affordable Care Act and how to handle it legislatively and administratively
• Executive power–is there a Cincinnatus among the lot?
• Concrete plans to address government spending–“I want to cut it” is not sufficient
• Entitlement reform–everyone knows what needs to be done, but someone has to have the courage to propose it and run on it
• Race and criminal justice–if the GOP wants to expand its tent, especially to begin to appeal to African-Americans, concrete plans for how to address and aid those who struggle in our urban areas is a must.
• Public unions and government contracts–Scott Walker may have the market cornered on this, but significant bureaucratic and educational reform is unlikely without a redefinition of the relationship between the state and public employee unions.

The actual political issues may be quite different by the time 2016 actually arrives. This is why the principles that guide the candidates are far more important than the transient issues that may or may not currently divide them.

So, what say you? Are there other issues that seem pertinent that I am forgetting? Which candidate(s) do you think will fare best and why?