Don’t misunderstand me: There is nothing wrong with the GOP trying to expand its appeal. But Rubio and those who agree with him seem to mean more than that the party must be more inclusive. Instead, they seem to mean that the Republican Party ought to change its approach and become what it has not been for a long, long time: an activist, interfering, micromanaging party that seeks the power of the state to fix economic ills. Talking to Batya Ungar-Sargon, an opinion editor of Newsweek, in February, Rubio suggested that “the most important thing an economy does for a country is create stable, good-paying jobs so that people can start families, get involved in their communities, and retire with dignity. And so,” he continued, “the question becomes: What can we do at the federal level to encourage that kind of economy?”

The first inquiry that one must make when examining such calls for change is, “As opposed to what?” Alas, all too often the answer is, “To a straw man.” In the telling of many reformers, the Republican Party is full of cold-eyed, highly effective budget hawks, who have been so assiduous in their successful quest to slash federal spending, shrink the size of the state, balance revenues with expenditures, and strip entitlements to the bone that they have managed to turn the United States into a lean, mean, stock-market-obsessed, libertar­ian paradise that has forgotten about the needs of real people. But, of course, this Republican Party does not exist. Since the 1980s, the GOP has, indeed, been highly effective at cutting taxes. But precisely which government programs has it ever managed to eliminate, reduce, or reform? The only example of retrenchment that comes to mind is the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, which, while salutary in its effects, has been much undermined since its passage. If, as Rubio suggests, the federal government is not encouraging the right sort of economy, wouldn’t it be a little strange to add to its already sprawling role?