Karl Rove has penned a column for the latest issue of TIME illustrating the virtues of a leader like Teddy Roosevelt. This isn’t surprising. Rove, after all, is a political history buff who believes that GWB is the contemporary political equivalent of William McKinley, the Republican president who preceded TR. Consistent with this reading of history — one with which I agree — the next logical step in institutional GOP dominance is a leader who can bring the country together and end the red/blue divide, much as TR was able to pull in the wavering western states that had never quite been able to decide between McKinley and his two-time opponent, William Jennings Bryan. TR’s 1904 election saw the collapse of the Democratic Party for the next two and a half decades as the west joined the north and the east to form a solid Republican majority, leaving only the south to the Democrats. A modern TR would presumably complete the GOP transformation of Middle America, producing the 3-4 percent swing in the American electorate necessary for the GOP to win back Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Oregon, giving Republicans a total of 37 states and 355 electoral votes on election day 2008.

But the desire for a new TR is about more than numbers. Otherwise, any candidate with the right demographic appeal could win over the specific voting blocs necessary for the aforementioned victory. No, TR-craze isn’t only about electoral strategy; it’s also about the periodic national need for a president who embodies all the qualities Rove speaks of: leadership, character, big ideas, and the ability to inspire a nation.

Not everyone agrees with Mr. Rove’s assessment though. To find out why, read on.

Particularly critical of the TR-worship is National Review’s Jonah Goldberg, who explains his beef with the movement here, here, and here. Jonah’s argument is two-fold. First, he correctly claims that TR wasn’t a conservative, and, as such, conservatives are in danger of being seduced by the siren’s song of Weekly Standard types who, in Goldberg’s view, are trying to make conservatism too much about big government. Secondly, Jonah seems generally uneasy with a leader like TR, a larger-than-life fellow who accomplishes goals through sheer force of will and who dominates supporters and opponents alike. Jonah doesn’t say it, but I suspect he fears that a democracy that starts electing leaders like this is on its way towards becoming something other than a democracy.

I disagree with Jonah. Here’s why.

First, I think it’s clear that neither TR nor the early 20th Century Republican Party were “conservative” as the term is presently defined. Not only did modern conservatism not exist during TR’s time, but the GOP, as the party of the north and the east, was naturally more of a liberal party by current terms than its southern Democratic alternative. But I’m not really sure any of this is relevant to the discussion at hand. For one thing, most people who tout TR as a great leader aren’t suggesting that we all run out and adopt his policies for the nation. What TR fans are saying is that McKinley and Roosevelt created a 30-year Republican majority by recognizing what this country’s future held economically, socially, and internationally, and then acting on those recognitions with specific, forward-thinking policies. It has been noted that both McKinley and TR were great friends of labor. Of course they were! Labor was the backbone of the new industrial economy! Being supportive of labor was being supportive of the nation’s economic future. Does that mean today’s Republicans should all go out and tout tariffs and protectionism? Of course not! Today’s economy is post-industrial. This requires an emphasis on an entirely different set of issues and individuals. A modern TR would recognize this and focus on the high-tech sectors that represent the America of tomorrow. I believe that Bush has at least fulfilled his role as McKinley in this regard, which is why 97 of the fastest growing 100 counties in America voted for him.

But Jonah’s a smart guy, and my guess is he gets this general point. I suspect Jonah’s biggest beef with TR is an uneasiness with imperious presidents. This is where I part with Jonah entirely. I think the country needs a strong, larger-than-life president every now and then to go around the checks and balances that are in place as much as possible in order to do the right thing for the country. Take Ronald Reagan. When Reagan came to office, the country needed a major sea change in its policy direction, economically, socially, and internationally. The governmental mechanisms that were in place made such drastic changes very, very difficult. This, of course, is what the Founders intended, as they rightly feared the ability of any and every new government to enact its every whim upon the nation. Governing is supposed to be a slow and steady process, and most initiatives are never supposed to become law. This is generally true, but every now and then, the country’s policies are so wrongheaded or outdated that a major change is necessary. This was the case when Reagan came to town. And so when Congress wouldn’t listen, what did Reagan do? He went around them and came directly to the American people. His stellar communication skills and larger-than-life persona won the country to his policies, and a Democratic House of Representatives had no choice but to enact his massive tax cuts and other major overhauls. If this is the sort of thing Jonah fears, I say, bring it on!

Additionally, these rockstar presidents generally do more for national unity than any sort of Bill Clinton technocrat or even folksy presidents like GWB. I’m talking about great leaders like Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, TR, FDR, JFK, and Ronald Reagan. None of these presidents was perfect, and depending on your point of view, many may have had exactly the wrong policies for the country. But still, there’s a reason they are remembered as great: the number of Americans that love them is huge, the number that hate them is few, and even their opponents had a hard time disliking them.

As such, I am generally supportive of finding a new TR for 2008: someone who can bring at least 53-54 percent of Americans together behind a forward-thinking, reformist conservative agenda, and who can enact that agenda despite all the barriers that exist in Washington. Serious problems need to be addressed. The entitlements need dramatic restructuring to avoid fiscal Armageddon. The national debt needs to be paid down. The culture war must be diffused by returning issues like abortion to the states. The Islamists aren’t going away. And our country must remain competitive in a global economy, with hyper-educated, hyper-technical nations as our competitors. It will take a great leader to tackle all of that. I say, bring on TR!