Is Classical Liberalism dead in today's Republican Party?

The reason I'm asking is that it often seems that way to me. I'm thinking that the Wikipedia's attempt to call it "conservatism" may therefore be in error.

From the Wiki entry, a brief definition of Classical liberalism:

a doctrine stressing the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill,[3], Montesquieu, Voltaire [4] and others. As such, it is seen as the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism.[5] The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society,[6] though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of a few basic public goods that the market is seen as being incapable of providing.[7] The qualification classical was applied in retrospect to distinguish early nineteenth-century liberalism from the "new liberalism" associated with Thomas Hill Green, Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse,[8] and Franklin D. Roosevelt,[9] which grants a more interventionist role for the state. Classical liberalism is not to be confused with the ideology that is commonly called "liberalism" today in the United States, as classical liberalism is actually closer to being a tendency of "conservativism" in the U.S.[10]

If this poll is correct, times are changing:

The overseas earnings of large US companies may well be shielding the US economy from a recession at a time when the housing market is in a steep slump but voters of the traditionally pro-business Republican Party, by a nearly two-to-one margin, believe free trade is bad for the US economy, a shift in opinion that mirrors Democratic views and suggests trade deals could face high hurdles under a new president.

A new Wall Street Journal-NBC News Poll shows a fraying of Republican Party orthodoxy on the economy. While 60% of respondents said they want the next president and Congress to continue cutting taxes, 32% said it's time for some tax increases on the wealthiest Americans to reduce the budget deficit and pay for health care.

Six in 10 Republicans in the poll agreed with a statement that free trade has been bad for the US and said they would agree with a Republican candidate who favoured tougher regulations to limit foreign imports. The Journal says that represents a challenge for Republican candidates who generally echo President Bush's calls for continued trade expansion, and reflects a substantial shift in sentiment from eight years ago.

Is Classical liberalism dead?

I hope not. (And after all, you can't kill a theory, so in the technical sense it will never die.) What worries me, though, is that Classical liberalism may be close to dead in the Republican Party. Ironically, its executioner (or at least the guy who's hammering in the coffin nails) would seem to be its staunchest proponent -- Ron Paul. While there is no logical relationship between economic policies and support or opposition to the War in Iraq, human thought tends to become contaminated by juxtapositional associations -- especially when people are in a hurry (or mentally overloaded). Like it or not, Ron Paul's strident opposition to the war is being indelibly associated with his equally strident economic laissez faire advocacy. Few people take the time to sort these things out and ask whether he might be partially right. Instead, they dismiss him as a loon. And with him, they dismiss Classical liberalism.

As a Classical liberal (or small "l" libertarian, "civil societarian," or whatever you might call it), I hate to see this happening.

Parenthetically, this touches on why I think Alan Keyes should be included in the debates. It seems only fair (if not fair, at least symmetrical) that someone should be doing to social conservatism what Ron Paul is doing to libertarianism. Besides, there are people in the party who agree with Keyes, just as there are people in the party who agree with Paul.

And, just as there are plenty of social conservatives who disagree with Keyes, so there are plenty of libertarians who disagree with Paul. Why does the "kook" phenomenon have to be linked in the debates only to libertarianism?

Anyway, I'm sorry to see clear evidence that the Republican party rank and file have become so accepting of statism, because the Democrats offer no alternative at all. Whether it takes the form the welfare state, the nanny state, or the big government conservatism state, I worry that the country is headed for populist totalitarianism with mutual consent of both parties.

No doubt there will be plenty of "triangulation" on both sides.

MORE: Fred Thompson speaks out against triangulation:

"Some think the way to beat the Democrats in November is to be more like them. I could not disagree more," the one-time Tennessee senator says in remarks he is to deliver to the Conservative Party of New York.

"I believe that conservatives beat liberals only when we challenge their outdated positions, not embrace them. This is not a time for philosophical flexibility, it is a time to stand up for what we believe in," Thompson adds.

(Not to confuse an already confused issue, but I should point out that there is also such a thing as neoclassical liberalism.)

UPDATE: Oregon Guy has an interesting post on the submission curve. (This one's good too.)