[WilrickV]

Firstly, I would like to apologize to anyone who may suspect that the thread title contains an unwarranted assumption. You may make your case as you like, but I am convinced that the party leadership* is wholly unfit to serve as opposition to the Democrats. Ever since I started following politics, which roughly coincided with the Democratic victories in 2006, I have always felt that the Democrats have consistently outclassed Republicans on a rhetorical and intellectual level. I have not been able to articulate why until now.

*I use leadership in this post to mean those who craft the Republican ideological agenda. This group presently consists of those in possession of the loudest megaphones and greatest media footprint.

In most instances of debate between the mainstream ideological positions of the two parties, the Republicans disadvantage themselves from the start by using the ideological framework of their opponents. That is, the Republicans start with the same set of first assumptions and guiding principles that the Democrats had originally engineered to service their own arguments.

One most easily sees this in Republican negative reactions to Democratic positions. The Democrats predicate their policy of environmentalist legislation on scientific studies. Republicans, then, question the accuracy of these studies, tacitly accepting all Democratic assumptions on the implications of the studies and appropriateness of the legislation if the studies were true. On evolution, it is the science of the evolutionary biologists that the Republicans find at fault, not the wretched theology of the secularists who use evolution to discredit religion. On healthcare, Republicans contest that the Canadian and the UK healthcare systems are actually disastrous for their respective countries, as if all that need be proven to justify transplanting a foreign system to the US is the efficacy of that system in its native land. On gun control, some Republicans are actually arguing that guns do not make it easier for someone to kill someone else. In all of these situations Republicans should be questioning the fundamental assumptions upon which the Democratic ideology lies, and not merely arguing that the Democrats are incorrect within their own framework.

As a result of this appropriation, the Republican and Democratic ideologies as articulated in the mainstream are both two paths to the same end point. The logical conclusion of the Democratic position, even if Democrats themselves are unaware of it, is absolute atomistic individualism. Democratic politicians seek to expand the role of the federal and state governments to liberate the individual from all constraints of socioeconomic class, family/community situation, and gender. To this end, the government must protect children from their families, ensure their correct education (and ability to receive education), and protect them from their religion. They must minimize the petty coercions individuals force upon each other daily, to which end they implement schemes of dramatic social leveling. These policies they seek to foist upon schools, businesses, religious institutions, and relations of family, sex, and marriage. All of this is to bring individuals closer to the absolute equality that is a prerequisite to absolute liberty.

The Republican ideology, sharing the same framework, of course shares the same logical conclusion, and it is the foundation of the centerpiece of their ideology: free-market capitalism. This bit, of course, predates even the current Democratic ideological settlement. However, it is maintained as part of the Republican platform just as much out of opposition to the Democratic position as it is to respect for American laissez-faire tradition. Present-day Republicans, however, are unabashed in their advocacy for economic liberalism as a form of social leveling and creator of “equal opportunities if not equal results.” Thus they advocate an unrestrained capitalism that views the social destruction it wreaks as a necessary, and perhaps even desirable, sacrifice.

It is my hope that the present Republican leadership may be cast aside in favor of a legitimate conservative leadership that has the ability and the willingness to challenge the first principles of the Democratic ideological framework.

[Buzz62]

Good post.
Very insightful.
Are you upset about the religious questions Democrats pose?

[Joe Liberty]

I also found this (mostly) insightful and accurate.

That is, the Republicans start with the same set of first assumptions and guiding principles that the Democrats had originally engineered to service their own arguments ... Republicans, then ... tacitly [accept] all Democratic assumptions on the implications of the studies and appropriateness of the legislation if the studies were true.

An excellent point!

In all of these situations Republicans should be questioning the fundamental assumptions upon which the Democratic ideology lies, and not merely arguing that the Democrats are incorrect within their own framework.

Ah, but this advice presumes that Republicans actually believe that the Democrat's fundamental assumptions are false. I don't think they do. Republicans are just as quick to craft government "solutions" as Democrats are, they're just different "solutions". So I think they share the Democrats' fundamental assumption that legislation is the answer, their campaign rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding.

For instance, you lay out their respective goals (for Democrats, "atomistic individualism", for Republicans, "free-market capitalism"), but I can argue quite easily that neither of those is true. Both parties deal with identity politics to a degree, but Democrats have built a dynasty on it. They are almost completely unconcerned with individualism, preferring instead to think in terms of groups (and the entirely made-up concept of group rights). If Democrats are truly concerned with individualism then they are a study in contradictions, since they believe they must erect a massive and intrusive government to accomplish it.

Likewise, Republicans will talk up "free-market capitalism" when they're campaigning, but they're the first ones to craft "business-friendly" legislation. Again, a study in contradiction. I think you've landed on what they want you to believe are their ideological goals, but that's just what they tell people; their actions say something quite different.

Your conclusion, that they are both two paths to the same end point, is absolutely true. They are two bullies arguing over who should be terrorized.

[Rei Murasame]

In most instances of debate between the mainstream ideological positions of the two parties, the Republicans disadvantage themselves from the start by using the ideological framework of their opponents. That is, the Republicans start with the same set of first assumptions and guiding principles that the Democrats had originally engineered to service their own arguments.

What principles would you like them to adopt instead? There's a lot that I could say, but first you need to tell us what you want them to do.

What would you like the right-wing in the USA to become?

[Eisleben]

It is my hope that the present Republican leadership may be cast aside in favor of a legitimate conservative leadership that has the ability and the willingness to challenge the first principles of the Democratic ideological framework.

Republican leaders are very liberal and the intellectual weakness of their arguments stems from the insincerity of pandering to conservatives and posing as an opposing party without really being one. They get away with this because the Republican base is poisoned by judaphilism. Support Israel and your insincerity will be mostly ignored.

[Buzz62]

What would you like the right-wing in the USA to become?

OH
OH
OH...

I know the answer to this one!

Quiet?

[KlassWar]

What would you like the right-wing in the USA to become?

Ash and bone and ruin.

[Rei Murasame]

Well, I assume that neither of those things are going to be his answer, guys.

I'm assuming that his response may involve some idea about opposing individualism, and opposing 'the free market' ideas, simultaneously.

[WilrickV]

Thanks for all the interesting points and questions. I shall respond to some of these:

Are you upset about the religious questions Democrats pose?

Yes. The actual questions they pose are quite diverse, and, thankfully, mainstream Democrats often suffer from ideological impurity on this issue. However, I think it is reasonable to say that in most cases those who bear hostility toward religion also hold broadly Democratic sympathies.

I strongly suspect that Republican-style unrestrained capitalism will also eventually lead to the extinguishment of religion.

Ah, but this advice presumes that Republicans actually believe that the Democrat's fundamental assumptions are false. I don't think they do. Republicans are just as quick to craft government "solutions" as Democrats are, they're just different "solutions". So I think they share the Democrats' fundamental assumption that legislation is the answer, their campaign rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding.

For instance, you lay out their respective goals (for Democrats, "atomistic individualism", for Republicans, "free-market capitalism"), but I can argue quite easily that neither of those is true. Both parties deal with identity politics to a degree, but Democrats have built a dynasty on it. They are almost completely unconcerned with individualism, preferring instead to think in terms of groups (and the entirely made-up concept of group rights). If Democrats are truly concerned with individualism then they are a study in contradictions, since they believe they must erect a massive and intrusive government to accomplish it.

Likewise, Republicans will talk up "free-market capitalism" when they're campaigning, but they're the first ones to craft "business-friendly" legislation. Again, a study in contradiction. I think you've landed on what they want you to believe are their ideological goals, but that's just what they tell people; their actions say something quite different.

Your conclusion, that they are both two paths to the same end point, is absolutely true. They are two bullies arguing over who should be terrorized.

I agree that many Republicans likely do share the fundamental assumptions of Democrats. I may have also characterized the governing ideologies of each party as being too monolithic. There are likely other ideologies that members of each party rummages through when they must select a policy position. However, I think the primary ideology of each party is largely congruent with my description.

On the Democrats and groups: The Democratic obsession with groups is actually the initial stage of their drive to individualism (their “Socialism” of groups is necessary for their “Communism” of individualism, if you will). Before I go further, I feel it necessary to specify some of my terms. Absolute liberty exists when one cannot conceive of any way in which one is unfree (the “one cannot conceive” part is very important). Absolute equality exists when one cannot conceive of any way in which one is unequal to anyone else. While a society may be extremely individualistic while being extremely unequal, and vice-versa, absolute individualism and absolute equality may only exist when the other is also present. One may also say that absolute atomistic individualism is a characteristic of such a society. One should also keep in mind that I am defining liberty as the absence of coercion, which I do not think is an unreasonable definition.

The primary goal of Democratic group politics is the correction and erasure of perceived unjust, normative oppression. To this end, minorities must benefit from affirmative action, same-sex marriage must be legalized, etc. etc. All of this systemic oppression has as one of its components a relation of coercion. The economic status of many racial minorities constrains them. Someone who wishes to marry someone else of the same sex may not do so. These coercions must be swept away, in this case through group-oriented policies, if our society is to achieve absolute liberty.

If Democrats are truly concerned with individualism then they are a study in contradictions, since they believe they must erect a massive and intrusive government to accomplish it.

I wish to discuss this point in particular a bit more. Due to the preponderance of classical liberalism and its progeny in the political parlance of Anglo-Saxon countries, “liberty” in such a context is typically concerned only with instances of the state coercing the individual. Indeed, it is frequently the only kind of coercion recognized in the grammar of today’s liberals and libertarians. In fact, there are many other forms of coercion that can be just as coercive. I am thinking of economic coercion, familial coercion, moral coercion, religious coercion, and even the biological coercions of the environment and health. These coercions are the ones with which the Democratic ideology chiefly concerns itself.

And yet, to individuals of Anglophone countries (and, quite possibly, those outside Anglophone countries as well due to the wide reach of Anglophone culture), considering these forms of coercion on the same level as state coercion seems inappropriate. This is merely a product of one’s cultural acclimations. Once one is sufficiently immersed in the Democratic ideology, one will not recognize “a massive and intrusive government” to be a constraint upon one’s liberty—in the same way that a libertarian does not consider one’s family or economic condition to be a constrain on one’s liberty. It is comparable to the attitude of medieval serfs toward equality of material existence with their lords. Such a question is not even one which their ideology permitted them. The same is true for an unblemished incarnation of the Democratic ideology and questions of contradiction between powerful government and individual liberty.

As to the “business-friendly legislation” of Republicans, I suspect that one may attribute that to a combination of non-ideological pragmatism and good ole-fashioned corruption.

Lastly, I would note that, even though it is dubious whether absolute liberty/equality may ever actually exist, it is dangerous enough merely that certain ideologies see it as the point towards which they should strive.

What would you like the right-wing in the USA to become?

You are correct in assuming that I oppose individualism and free market ideas, but I do not do so categorically. Our political culture is so enthused with individual liberty and capitalism that to provide sufficient opposition towards them may seem at times identical to a complete disavowal of the concepts. I actually do believe individualism and the free market are important, but too much of them are unhealthy, and they are presently making us quite sick.

I have a lot of ideas for the USA, too many to discuss here, but I’ll mention a few. Firstly, I believe that we should have a greater appreciation for paternalism. I am specifically talking about the paternalism present in societies less ravaged by market liberalism in which the prominent individuals of significant resources and wherewithal in a given community take it upon themselves to guide and support those of less wealth and ability. These relationships provided their societies with certain facets of social services, education, and material welfare that the state presently attempts to administer, but with less of the state’s tendency towards alienating and impersonal bureaucratic forces. Paternalism of this sort is something of an icky concept in American society due to our emphasis on individualism, and liberals would also fear the hierarchies of power that would likely result, but I rather feel that these facets of paternalism are desirable.

How to actually implement such a settlement is a messier matter. It would likely have to begin with government coercion, since, as I can imagine, the Donald Trumps of the world would not willingly enter black urban ghettos to cultivate relationships with their inhabitants to the degree that I feel would be necessary. However, the desired outcome is that, eventually, those in a position to be at the head of a paternalistic relationship will want to do so, and it will feel as natural to them as it did to the European aristocracy. Such an end is yet another reason to oppose market liberalism and individualism. (For someone as suspicious of radical social engineering as I am, I find that my prescriptions for a more conservative America often seem like radical social engineering.)

A few more things:

I am against the concept of social equality on the basis that it does not and should not exist. However, I am for equality under the law as a principle of justice.

I am cautiously against a ban on assault weapons, but I am for mandatory background checks on all firearm sales.

I am against the concept of a heterosexual/homosexual dichotomy, since I do not suspect that it is part of an accurate description of human sexuality, and it seems to not have existed in any societies before the twentieth century. Instead, observed heterosexuality and homosexuality is the result of attributive attractions and affections towards each sex as exists in different proportions in each individual. Marriage between a man and a woman, of course, should be the only kind of marriage, and sodomy is to be discouraged.

On foreign policy, I cannot think of a term that sums up how I feel. However, I am typically for a soft-realist conception of international relations, I find the neo-conservative foreign policy of the Bush and Obama administrations moronic, and I prefer a more traditional hierarchy of American foreign relations (Our allies should be Britain and France, not Georgia and Iraq.).

[Buzz62]

Yes. The actual questions they pose are quite diverse, and, thankfully, mainstream Democrats often suffer from ideological impurity on this issue. However, I think it is reasonable to say that in most cases those who bear hostility toward religion also hold broadly Democratic sympathies.

I strongly suspect that Republican-style unrestrained capitalism will also eventually lead to the extinguishment of religion.

OK that's a reasonable argument.
Question: Why would the extinguishing of organized religion be a bad thing?

[WilrickV]

Republican leaders are very liberal and the intellectual weakness of their arguments stems from the insincerity of pandering to conservatives and posing as an opposing party without really being one. They get away with this because the Republican base is poisoned by judaphilism. Support Israel and your insincerity will be mostly ignored.

I would suspect that the indicated support most Americans give to Israel exists only because pro-Israelism seems inherent in conservative ideological discourse. Republican opinion-makers say that the US should support Israel, and this position has been repeated so many times that the Republican base, in its self-identification as Republican, naturally acquires a desire to support Israel. If there were credible voices against the support of Israel within the Republican Party, then I think the monopoly of opinion on this issue would crumble.

The reason why the Republican base continues to support the party leadership is the same reason why they continue to support pro-Israeli policy: they (most of them, anyway) identify first as Republican and only subsequently as supporters of a Republican ideology.

Question: Why would the extinguishing of organized religion be a bad thing?

Of course, if the doctrine of an organized religion is true, then to eliminate that would be to deprive people of a means to ascertain that truth and live according to it. Secondarily, religion provides benefits of social cohesion, as well as systems of education and morality. While these latter effects are also possible in the absence of religion, religion provides them in a package more readily understood and more readily useable to more people.

[Rainbow Crow]

The Republican party leadership is based primarily off of seniority, which as some people have pointed out ties into ideas of traditionalism and accomplishment.

In comparison, the Democratic party leadership is more dynamic and puts more weight behind charisma as well as seniority. Young people will conclude that this is inherently better but the truth is that it depends.

Support for paternalism means either accepting that government will become corrupt or believing irrationally that it will never grow corrupt despite wielding absolute or at least great power. A free market is not viewed as perfect by Republicans, it is viewed as the lesser of two evils.

[Buzz62]

Of course, if the doctrine of an organized religion is true, then to eliminate that would be to deprive people of a means to ascertain that truth and live according to it. Secondarily, religion provides benefits of social cohesion, as well as systems of education and morality. While these latter effects are also possible in the absence of religion, religion provides them in a package more readily understood and more readily useable to more people.

SOME of religious doctrine is useful. But it is hard to take such organizations seriously when we know the full and distasteful history of them.
Especially the Christian organizations.
They teach love and peace, yet have built their empire on the blood of anyone they deemed...in the way of their ambitions.
That includes women, the native peoples of all the Americas, and even their own.
I do not believe morality and social cohesion is the sole responsibility of the church, nor do I think they are particularly necessary for these virtues to be taught. Quite the contrary when you consider the history of the messenger.

The way Christian history reads...were I truly a classically religious man...I would identify the Catholic Church as Satan.
The liar.
The murderer.
The Cheat.

[WilrickV]

Support for paternalism means either accepting that government will become corrupt or believing irrationally that it will never grow corrupt despite wielding absolute or at least great power. A free market is not viewed as perfect by Republicans, it is viewed as the lesser of two evils.

Corruption will occur, of course. Understand that I am not for granting the government "absolute or at least great power." Under this arrangement as I see it, the paternalism will be very decentralized among the mostly private individuals who possess the means to carry it out. Government enforcement will of course have to accompany this policy in the short term, but its power in this regard will not be much greater than the present powers of the IRS, and the goal is to encourage a more or less self-sustaining system.

SOME of religious doctrine is useful. But it is hard to take such organizations seriously when we know the full and distasteful history of them.
Especially the Christian organizations.
They teach love and peace, yet have built their empire on the blood of anyone they deemed...in the way of their ambitions.
That includes women, the native peoples of all the Americas, and even their own.
I do not believe morality and social cohesion is the sole responsibility of the church, nor do I think they are particularly necessary for these virtues to be taught. Quite the contrary when you consider the history of the messenger.

The way Christian history reads...were I truly a classically religious man...I would identify the Catholic Church as Satan.
The liar.
The murderer.
The Cheat.

Unsurprisingly, my interpretation of Christian history disagrees with yours. However, it matters not whether we find the church to be a liar, murderer, or cheat. One's subjective judgment on the utility and civic behavior of the church, no matter how severe, would always be insufficient a reason to banish it to extinction. It exists entirely outside individual subjectivity. The verdicts of you, I, or anyone else against it are irrelevant to the truth of its doctrine.

[Harvey]

Firstly, I would like to apologize to anyone who may suspect that the thread title contains an unwarranted assumption. You may make your case as you like, but I am convinced that the party leadership* is wholly unfit to serve as opposition to the Democrats. Ever since I started following politics, which roughly coincided with the Democratic victories in 2006, I have always felt that the Democrats have consistently outclassed Republicans on a rhetorical and intellectual level. I have not been able to articulate why until now.

*I use leadership in this post to mean those who craft the Republican ideological agenda. This group presently consists of those in possession of the loudest megaphones and greatest media footprint.

In most instances of debate between the mainstream ideological positions of the two parties, the Republicans disadvantage themselves from the start by using the ideological framework of their opponents. That is, the Republicans start with the same set of first assumptions and guiding principles that the Democrats had originally engineered to service their own arguments.

One most easily sees this in Republican negative reactions to Democratic positions. The Democrats predicate their policy of environmentalist legislation on scientific studies. Republicans, then, question the accuracy of these studies, tacitly accepting all Democratic assumptions on the implications of the studies and appropriateness of the legislation if the studies were true. On evolution, it is the science of the evolutionary biologists that the Republicans find at fault, not the wretched theology of the secularists who use evolution to discredit religion. On healthcare, Republicans contest that the Canadian and the UK healthcare systems are actually disastrous for their respective countries, as if all that need be proven to justify transplanting a foreign system to the US is the efficacy of that system in its native land. On gun control, some Republicans are actually arguing that guns do not make it easier for someone to kill someone else. In all of these situations Republicans should be questioning the fundamental assumptions upon which the Democratic ideology lies, and not merely arguing that the Democrats are incorrect within their own framework.

As a result of this appropriation, the Republican and Democratic ideologies as articulated in the mainstream are both two paths to the same end point. The logical conclusion of the Democratic position, even if Democrats themselves are unaware of it, is absolute atomistic individualism. Democratic politicians seek to expand the role of the federal and state governments to liberate the individual from all constraints of socioeconomic class, family/community situation, and gender. To this end, the government must protect children from their families, ensure their correct education (and ability to receive education), and protect them from their religion. They must minimize the petty coercions individuals force upon each other daily, to which end they implement schemes of dramatic social leveling. These policies they seek to foist upon schools, businesses, religious institutions, and relations of family, sex, and marriage. All of this is to bring individuals closer to the absolute equality that is a prerequisite to absolute liberty.

The Republican ideology, sharing the same framework, of course shares the same logical conclusion, and it is the foundation of the centerpiece of their ideology: free-market capitalism. This bit, of course, predates even the current Democratic ideological settlement. However, it is maintained as part of the Republican platform just as much out of opposition to the Democratic position as it is to respect for American laissez-faire tradition. Present-day Republicans, however, are unabashed in their advocacy for economic liberalism as a form of social leveling and creator of “equal opportunities if not equal results.” Thus they advocate an unrestrained capitalism that views the social destruction it wreaks as a necessary, and perhaps even desirable, sacrifice.

It is my hope that the present Republican leadership may be cast aside in favor of a legitimate conservative leadership that has the ability and the willingness to challenge the first principles of the Democratic ideological framework.

You are very bright. One thing that smart people sometimes miss though is the simple, little things. Those obvious matters.

What holds the GOP back most these days is that they have no electable politicians on the national level. That and the fact that what leadership they do have is far removed in thought from the youth of today. To a certain extent this has always been true as older folk tend to vote Conservative. However in this new century in the digital age the GOP has been absolutely remiss in developing a message that appeals to young voters. And that's BEFORE we look at how poorly the GOP is seen by Latinos and other minorities. Deservedly or not. Perhaps the GOP simply can't get young people to look their way. If this is so? Sell them short: the GOP simply must become irrelevant sooner or later down the road. I don't state that with any emotion at all it's just a matter of fact.


I see no major Republican leader who can make me laugh. Humorless all of them. And if you don't have one w/humor? He'll be pulled apart over the coals by Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show". Any politician who becomes a punch line is a real problem to the party. Take Sarah Palin for instance. Granted Jon Stewart is another member of the liberal media pretending to be just a comic but his words make people laugh at the GOP. This is the wrong kind of laughter for the GOP. You don't want to be on the receiving end of it.

Now had the GOP endorsed Ron Paul at least a little bit? Then the laissez faire capitalism concept could have sold better. In fact Paul would have had far better chances in the general election too save and except that corporate donors are scared of him. Ron Paul is seen as honest. Perhaps kind of eccentric but electable. He didn't exactly make a big deal out of divisive social issues like abortion. He's pro life but doesn't hit you over the head with it.

No one trusted Mitt Romney however and how can we blame them? there is hardly any subject he hasn't changed his position on 180 degrees. Usually more than once. Ted Kennedy never was of much interest to me but his reference to Romney on abortion as "Multiple choice" stung well. And what the hell it's true!

And if you ever do find a conservative with strong social value credentials, like say Sam Brownback he's absolutely un-electable in the general election.

All of this really bothers me as I'd like to see some kind of honest "Barry Goldwater type" Republican emerge in 2016 or 2020. But it isn'tlikely.

[nucklepunche]

It is my hope that the present Republican leadership may be cast aside in favor of a legitimate conservative leadership that has the ability and the willingness to challenge the first principles of the Democratic ideological framework.

I agree with some of what you wrote but I think the problem with the Republican leadership threefold.

1. Like it or not politics is a game, and there is an entire wing of the party that doesn't want to play the game.

I mean you had Rand Paul giving his own "Tea Party" SOTU response in addition to Rubio's. Rubio spoke of the importance of free enterprise, low taxes etc. Traditional Republican values. The only difference with Rand Paul was that he was less well-crafted (since Rubio desperately wants to be president he was straining to be "presidential") and more radical. It's like Rubio gave his point and Rand said, "Me too, but even more."

Basically they agree on the general direction the country ought to go but Paul and the TP want to go further in that direction. The problem is a lot of Tea Partiers want to primary mainstream Republicans and put up candidates that are unelectable outside the south and a few places in the west and midwest. In reality though the difference is the final goal, but they are waging war on theoretical grounds. We will never get smaller government if you have people who refuse to take practical steps to get there as long as they remain true to the final ideological vision.

Guess what? We are never going to have the libertarian Tea Party utopia they fantasize about. It will not happen. I do think we can have smaller government than we have now, but in my opinion the Tea Party is sacrificing this on the altar of purity.

2. Too many competing ideologies.

The success of the Democrats is that they are a coalition based party. They take various groups: black people, gay people, feminists, environmentalists, poor people, union members, academics, etc. and tailor their message to those groups and the party's ideology is the sum of all these interests. There isn't a major divide in the party between "fiscal liberals" and "social liberals." Maybe a white blue collar union worker is a lot more socially conservative than a gay, yuppie, environmentalist from San Francisco but they are able to speak to each of these on their own and form a coalition in the end.

Republicans meanwhile are more of an ideology based party, not a coalition based party. You basically have five ideological groups, the libertarian ultra small government wing (Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Justin Amash etc.), the mainstream center-right Republicans (Marco Rubio, John Boehner, Chris Christie), the socially conservative far-right/religious right (Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry) the hawkish neoconservatives (John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Dick Cheney) and finally the few moderates you have left (Jon Huntsman, Mitt Romney, Scott Brown).

The problem therein is that with the Democrats none of their goals are mutually exclusive. But in the GOP most of the main groups are incompatible with some other group. The libertarians are incompatible with the religious right on social issues, the neocons on foreign policy, and the moderates on economics. The social conservatives are incompatible with moderates and libertarians on social issues. The neocons are incompatible with libertarians on foreign policy. The moderates are incompatible with libertarians on economics and the religious right on social issues.

In a sense the group I defined as the "mainstream center-right" really has the best hope of uniting the party since in a sense they are sort of the middle ground on all these two. On economics they are fiscally conservative yet more moderate about it than libertarians. On social issues they are generally pro-life, against same-sex marriage and pro-gun but don't make them the central issues and use less extreme rhetoric. They are for a strong defense, but not reckless hawks. It is an uneasy coalition but really the only one that will work.

3. Too many idiots.

The GOP has a problem with stupid people, sorry to say. They alienate themselves from mainstream America with the number of nutcases they have. There are a lot of nuts on the left, in fact I'd argue just as many, but the left is generally good at not letting the real radicals get too powerful. You generally don't see prominent Democrats kissing Michael Moore's feet in the way you see Republicans kissing Rush Limbaugh's. And while plenty on the left theorized that Bush did 9/11 you really don't see too many prominent Democratic congressman and senators openly toying with such ideas in the way you see prominent Republicans toying openly with the idea that Obama is a secret Muslim communist who was born in Kenya.

The 10% who really truly are the swing voters are really turned off by it. You can't eliminate these people but you can quit giving them the podium. You need to have a few mainstream Republicans begin to repudiate the radicals.

[Rico]

I believe two Republican core beliefs are trickle-down-economics, or the less wealthy lot will improve, when the top 1% improve. The other being less government intervention, equals more profit. Get rid of unions, inspectors etc., the market will police itself insuring products are safe etc. Also if you take a look at RED & Blue states one will find less populated states, tend to be more Republican & urban (high density) populations are more democratic. Families in sparsely populated areas tend to believe more in individual efforts, for success, while New York City etc. are more democratic in nature as cooperation is more helpful than individualism. What' missing here is we need democrats & republican, plus the extremist on both ends, as opposing forces, where middle ground can grow.

[quetzalcoatl]

...the left is generally good at not letting the real radicals get too powerful. You generally don't see prominent Democrats kissing Michael Moore's feet in the way you see Republicans kissing Rush Limbaugh's. And while plenty on the left theorized that Bush did 9/11 you really don't see too many prominent Democratic congressman and senators openly toying with such ideas in the way you see prominent Republicans toying openly with the idea that Obama is a secret Muslim communist who was born in Kenya.

The 10% who really truly are the swing voters are really turned off by it. You can't eliminate these people but you can quit giving them the podium. You need to have a few mainstream Republicans begin to repudiate the radicals.

The reason for this is that the Democratic Party has usurped the center-right political stance. The marginal utility of screaming "socialism" at pols like O'bama (a Nixon clone in terms of worldview) is diminishing rapidly, and the Republican Party has nothing left in its armory.

[keso]

So, you spoke of confusing ideologies. Here are a few of the more salient points.

I am against the concept of social equality on the basis that it does not and should not exist. However, I am for equality under the law as a principle of justice.

Could you please explain more about how, and more importantly, why, "social equality," does not exist, and furthermore, why, "should it not exist?" Perhaps you could start with what causes social equality, or perhaps, what perpetuates it?

Or, just, "Why is social equality something that should not exist."

I am against the concept of a heterosexual/homosexual dichotomy, since I do not suspect that it is part of an accurate description of human sexuality, and it seems to not have existed in any societies before the twentieth century.

Indeed. What if someone showed you evidence to the contrary, would you change your mind?

Of course, if the doctrine of an organized religion is true, then to eliminate that would be to deprive people of a means to ascertain that truth and live according to it. Secondarily, religion provides benefits of social cohesion, as well as systems of education and morality. While these latter effects are also possible in the absence of religion, religion provides them in a package more readily understood and more readily useable to more people.

You mean, of course, your own religion, and not someone else's religion. Are you ok with someone else bringing in an organized religion that is not your religion, and imposing it on you?