The part in bold is the part, IMO, that doesn't come across often in your posts. I don't disagree with the sentiment here. Old school social conservatives have a very strong voice in the Republican party. Too strong, IMO. Don't disagree with that at all. I just argue that you paint with too broad a stroke, although I suspect you do so more for effect than anything ...
I don't think you emphasize the people who are just along for the ride. You pay attention to the bus drivers.
It seems pretty obvious to me that even if 40% of Republicans are mild as baby shampoo, that's not what we're going to get from the Republicans. We've got a track record to draw on. The hardliners set the Republican tone and agenda. The conservatives in the Dem party set the Democratic agenda.
If anyone looks at healthcare, the Republican response was hell no. The Democratic response was to pass the Bob Dole plan from 1996.
The toughest and most aggressive part of the Republican party is actually very radical and very effective. The radicals in the Democratic party are the weakest and most ineffectual part of the Democratic party.
This is obvious. We're still at war, we're still in all the Bush mess, we can't raise taxes, and we get to hear how the nation has gone totally commie while so little has changed. Why? Is it because
moderate Republicans and Democrats don't want a change? No, it is because the aggressive parts of the Republican right scare the bejeebers out of everyone normal with the threat of a smear campaign on their morality, patriotism, or capitalist commitment.
I have to emphasize what is important. Is it more important to acknowledge that there are moderate Republicans who help empower the nuts?
Or should I emphasize the nuts that moderate Republicans are aiding in a radical agenda?
Moderate Republicans are losing their battle. That accounts for the demographic growth for Democrats in upper income, more educated stratas.