David Brooks' column last Thursday (which requires Times Select) was a concise iteration of what he calls The Idiot's Guide to Winning the Republican Presidential Nomination. The column is largely about electoral strategy, but two passages struck me.

In the first, he proposes that Republican campaigns "create a Flourishing Families Committee. Get economists, religious activists and psychologists in one room to figure out how government can reduce stress on struggling families."

In the second, he writes:

Post-9/11, most Americans aren't anxious because their freedoms are being impinged. They're anxious because there's chaos all around: foreign policy chaos, fiscal chaos, cultural chaos. The authority structures they rely on have let them down. You need to lead the party to a new definition of Republicanism. This is a Republicanism that can provide safety, order and authority, so people can feel secure enough to pursue their dreams.

I'm glad to see a prominent conservative propose that Republican candidates prioritize economic security for struggling families. Income tax cuts that inure to the wealthiest Americans won't address those families' needs. Nor will the elimination of the estate tax. Nor, for that matter, will poorly-thought-out reductions in certain core entitlement programs like Social Security or Medicare.

If Brooks is right - and I think he is - the question Republican candidates have a year or so to answer is how they can set aside the sacred Republican dogma of tax cuts for the wealthy and reductions in entitlement and still secure the nomination. I hope one of the candidates figures it out. It certainly would make for a better general election. The country will be better off for the debate.