Short of serious secession talk, I expect we’d see the strong return of the nutty right-wing paramilitary groups we saw in the 90s.
Is there a hard number of posts at which an aside becomes a hijack?
I agree, but I think you have a lot of breathing space even after they appear. You can have all the militia groups in the world and not have to take secession talk too seriously. The point where I will think about thinking about moving to an area that will be something analogous to the Union would be when folks start showing up at the polls to beat up their opponents. That’s when they think they are too powerful to be denied.
They’re already utilising the wedge strategy.
Fiscal conservatism is in no tension with either religious conservatism or libertarianism.
Religious conservatism and libertarianism are in serious conflict, but the religious faction
is definitely essential to all Republican margins of victory, while the much smaller libertarian is not.
Who were largely all inflammatory reactionary rhetoric and no action (just like most of the revolutionary leftist groups in this country).
Depends what you mean by fiscal conservatism. Cutting public funding for contraception? The Catholic Church can get behind that. Cutting public funding for palliative care? The Catholic Church will absolutely not get behind that (apart from Pius Xth ike factions, which I think are actually the result more of fiscal impact on policy than theology).
You say that like you’re disappointed. :dubious:
You have forgotten Oklahoma City? Don’t underestimate the danger of nutty right-wing rhetoric.
Yes, but as horrible as that was (and it was quite horrible enough, thank you), it’s still a far cry from actually doing anything that’s going to either bring down the government or even precipitate a widespread secessionist movement. They’re going to be in organized, openly violent groups before they’re more than a law enforcement problem.
The core objective of US fiscal conservatism is reduction of government spending.
It does not depend on perfect agreement about what to cut and what to keep.
By “Religious conservative” I meant white evangelical Protestants. I believe it is safe
to say that faction has supported the Republican ticket by at least a 60-40 margin for
several decades. The margin in 2012 is about 70-30:
Religious Groups and Political Party Identification
I believe this faction makes up at least 30% of the total Republican popular vote, and that
few if any Republican candidates can do without them. The citation above also documents
that Catholics and moderate Protestants are much more evenly divided.
I agree that this is a good strategy, I just don’t agree that the Republicans are following it. They are moving farther to the right and casting out the moderates, even (and especially) the moderates who are already in elective office by primarying them and denying them the party nomination.
I think some of you are underestimating the myopic ignorance of much of Middle America. There are plenty of Americans, many of them highly educated, who harbor strong Republican sentiments and how many of them there are. They come home at night from their corporate middle management jobs hours from the nearest major city, watch Fox News with their 2.6 kids, go to church on Sundays and identify with that charming Mitt Romney and his clean cut, good looking running mate more than they do with that slightly pompous, over educated black fella’ who probably was born in this country and probably isn’t a Muslim.
But primarying moderates only hurts the party of the conservative candidate goes on to lose the general. That has happened in several high profile elections where a kooky candidate goes down in flames. But plenty of other right-wing primary winners have won. You may have noticed the 2010 mid term elections where more conservatives won primaries and the Republicans went on to take the House and several state houses.
So nominating extreme right wingers has not been a crippling problem for the Republicans, unless you feel that not gaining as strong a majority as they would otherwise have is crippling.
This could become a problem in the future, but it isn’t a problem now. And if the country turns against extreme right-wing candidates and won’t vote for them, then your typical Republican primary voter isn’t going to vote for them either. If the Republican right wing is a such a tiny minority that they can’t win general elections, they aren’t going to control the Republican primary either.
So your notion that general election voters invariably vote against extreme right-wing candidates is not true. There are plenty of right-wing voters, and plenty of other voters that don’t think being an extreme right-winger is a disqualification for office.
I wasn’t considering general elections at all in my post. I was talking about Republican party actions in reaction to an … emboldened? … more influential? right wing.
I agreed that moderating its stance would be a good long-term survival strategy, but that I don’t see it happening.