First of all, IMHO, I believe the primary elections are manipulated so that a 'Reagan' never happens again.
Secondly, I think that without Reagan Conservatism, the loosing of the Conservative juggernaut is nearly impossible. Anyone who endeavors to hyphenate Conservatism (including Palin btw) is hyphenating it in order to change what it is:
It is Goldwater libertarianism combined with the Judeo-Christian ethic (primarily Evangelical) in it's conscience, with an adherence to certain and defined principles which, when held ALL TOGETHER, are inclusive of the 3 major Conservative factions (Social Conservatism [SOCON], Financial/Libertarian Conservatism [FICON], and Defense/Foreign Policy Conservatism [DEFCON]).
What Reagan positively defined is the proposition that it does you, the voter, no harm to vote for a candidate that holds not only your principles, but the principles of all of the conservative factions - together in ONE candidate - And Reagan Conservatism is just that:
As a social conservative, you will natively uphold the purposes and principles of the vast Christian Right, but you may well have no interest in financial/libertarian conservatism or defense/foreign policy conservatism... But if you understand what Reagan wrought, you should forego a purely Christian candidate for a candidate which can stand astride all three factions and harness them together. Those factions harnessed together ARE the Conservative juggernaut, which IS unstoppable, and which speaks truths that 60%+ of Americans will hear like a pealing bell.
That candidate will not only hold the principles that you adhere to (inherent within the Christian Right), but will also be acceptable to the FICONS and the DEFCONS, because he adheres to their principles too. Without that 'harnessing together', the juggernaut cannot be formed, and the factions go their separate ways, falling powerlessly back into the vast sea of voters.
So, you see, despite what most folks here cry for, pragmatism, ABO, lesser of 2 evils, it is the purity candidate that is the only chance at a real victory - But not a pure SOCON, not a pure FICON, and not a pure DEFCON - What is needful is a pure Reaganite.
Unfortunately, the NeoCons hold power - NeoConservatism is a euphemism to describe the Baker wing 'moderates' of the Republican Party (Bush, Bush Jr, McCain)- They claim Reagan, but gain their power by division, not by inclusion. They have historically feigned allegiance to the principles of the Christians and Defense conservatives, but have successfully omitted the inclusion of Financial/libertarian conservatives, and with that, have omitted civil-libertarianism from the conscience of most conservative folks today - Something a Reaganite would never do.
But in doing so, NeoCons gain just enough voting power to hold on to power, and without the necessary civil-libertarian element, we spin ever toward the left, as Neocons attempt to consolidate by trying to gain votes form a largely imaginary middle. This is why pragmatism is preached.
But there is hope: The TEA parties are American Conservatives crying out, and it is no coincidence that it is formed largely of civil-libertarianism combined with a still burgeoning Christian Right component. And it is no surprise that they are insistent that their candidates adhere to the principles of those two factions... This is Reaganism's core re-consolidating beyond the reach of the Republican party. And it is my hope that they stand true to their cause and get behind a Conservative presidential candidate, even if it means that a 3rd party is employed.
Jim Baker? James A. Baker III? The Reagan-Bush guy?
By now, "neocons" are all things to all men, but the foreign policy "neocons" hated and still hate Jim Baker.
As politicians go, he wasn't awful. As I recall, he didn't have much to say about social conservatism one way or the other.