Republican's aren't a uniform population either, though some strict party discipline (aided by Reagan's 11th commandment of "though shalt not speak ill of other Republicans") allowed them to keep that face for a while. I count 4 divisions:
1) "National Greatness" conservatives (also called Neocons) who espouse American exceptionalism and the projection of American ideals to other countries, often with the backing of the military.
2) "Social Conservatives", the "one issue" voters on abortion, gay marriage, prayer in schools, and other social changes of the last 40 years that they see as eroding American society.
3) "Fiscal Conservatives" who want less taxation and less spending, a lazzais faire regulatory landscape. This is the Business and Investor class.
4) "Small Government" Conservatives: The ones who want government to have a minimal presence in all areas. There are your Old Time Republicans.
There are a limited number of overlaps in these groups, and the stress fractures are starting to show. Fiscal conservatives never expected that the social conservatives would get real power, and aren't happy now that they are. Social conservatives were beginning to split based on age and religious differences - younger ones wonder if stopping Gay marriage really more important than, say, poverty alleviation, a traditionally Democratic talking point? - but were re-energized by a pick of "one of their own" to the VP slot.
The primary battle was a case study of a National Greatness, Fiscal and Social Conservative battling it out and watching the base fracture. Eventually McCain won because the Fiscal conservatives couldn't stomach a populist like Huckabee and abandoned their support for Romney to back McCain. Of course, now McCain has picked a Social Conservative for his running mate. This hasn't united the party so much as caused it to wonder why they're married to each other in the first place.
I am streongly hoping that a few years in the wilderness will let the Republicans figure out what they want to stand for going forward because I don't like the idea of single party dominance - at least not for more than a few years - but I want the Republicans to move away from the things I find objectionable, such as government intrustion into my bedroom and my cousin's gay marriage.
I'd also like it if the Democrats proove that their time in the wilderness has led them to abandon some of their less than brilliant ideas, but I doubt it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-10-15 10:12 am (UTC)1) "National Greatness" conservatives (also called Neocons) who espouse American exceptionalism and the projection of American ideals to other countries, often with the backing of the military.
2) "Social Conservatives", the "one issue" voters on abortion, gay marriage, prayer in schools, and other social changes of the last 40 years that they see as eroding American society.
3) "Fiscal Conservatives" who want less taxation and less spending, a lazzais faire regulatory landscape. This is the Business and Investor class.
4) "Small Government" Conservatives: The ones who want government to have a minimal presence in all areas. There are your Old Time Republicans.
There are a limited number of overlaps in these groups, and the stress fractures are starting to show. Fiscal conservatives never expected that the social conservatives would get real power, and aren't happy now that they are. Social conservatives were beginning to split based on age and religious differences - younger ones wonder if stopping Gay marriage really more important than, say, poverty alleviation, a traditionally Democratic talking point? - but were re-energized by a pick of "one of their own" to the VP slot.
The primary battle was a case study of a National Greatness, Fiscal and Social Conservative battling it out and watching the base fracture. Eventually McCain won because the Fiscal conservatives couldn't stomach a populist like Huckabee and abandoned their support for Romney to back McCain. Of course, now McCain has picked a Social Conservative for his running mate. This hasn't united the party so much as caused it to wonder why they're married to each other in the first place.
I am streongly hoping that a few years in the wilderness will let the Republicans figure out what they want to stand for going forward because I don't like the idea of single party dominance - at least not for more than a few years - but I want the Republicans to move away from the things I find objectionable, such as government intrustion into my bedroom and my cousin's gay marriage.
I'd also like it if the Democrats proove that their time in the wilderness has led them to abandon some of their less than brilliant ideas, but I doubt it.