Whether Fred Thompson intended it, his recent op-eds appearing in a variety of conservative publications and Web sites have touched on themes dear to conservatives: strong national defense; free-market economics; and, Thompson's latest appearing in Townhall, the primacy of federalism in our constitutional system. (A possible fourth theme would be what is known as traditional, or social, conservatism.)

Yesterday's Townhall op-ed, which is something of a continuation of a National Review op-ed from Monday, is interesting, because it's one of the first instances where Thompson seems to be defending his conservative credentials, rather than simply stating his beliefs, from a critique by NR senior editor Ramesh Ponnuru. The issue is Thompson's opposition to tort reform during his Senate days, which greatly angered conservatives at the time. As Thompson notes, he was the only senator to vote against a "good Samaritan" law that would have protected people who willingly assist others in need from civil action.

Thompson writes:

Now I can assure you that I have nothing against good Samaritans. If a person stops to help someone in distress on the highway and something bad happens, generally, the good Samaritan should not be sued by some overly ambitious trial lawyer. But states are, and have been for years, perfectly capable of handling this burning issue -- as well as all of the sub-issues that are raised, such as who should be protected as a good Samaritan. What if he was intoxicated and made a slight misstep while applying medical relief? What if he was not impaired, but made a gross error and turns a minor problem into a significant one? You get the idea. This is traditionally state law stuff. Is this really something the federal government should involve itself in?

Conservatives will have to judge for themselves the merits of Thompson's arguments. But what we're witnessing here is the rare instance of a potential presidential candidate debating political philosophy with the some of the nation's top conservatives (in this case, NR's Ramesh Ponnuru), as opposed to rival candidates. And it's a substantive debate -- not the usual aide-written stuff most candidates slap their name to. My guess is that conservatives will love this, whether they agree with Thompson or not, because so few candidates are willing (or able) to do it.

It's also a good strategy in that Thompson needs to show that despite his absence from the political scene he's still very much a student of politics and not just an actor who saw politics as a diversion.