Quote:
Originally posted by Captain
In any two-party system, a ruling party has to be a coalition of different forces, and a good example can be seen in the Supreme Court picks. Roberts is a moderate conservative, and not a particularly appealing candidate to the religious right, for example. But the religious right, as one of the Republican coalition members, has to get some victories. It's the only way to build a coalition. So loyal Republicans, to keep winning elections, will need to continue to be willing to give the religious right some important victories. It does not mean every Republican has to be a member of the religious right, but at least the office holders will need to support some of the religious right's causes.
Should I go back to the Captain Obvious avatar?
|
Perhaps so, yes.
Your epistle about the vagaries of coalitions is true as far as it goes, though we appear to differ about which factors of the Republican coalition are in ascendancy and which are in decline.
Your post suggests that the religious right is a force that needs to be tended and occasionally placated, but doesn't run the joint. I believe that today's edition of the GOP is a fine example of money power marinated in social conservatism. Attribute it to shifting coalitions if you must, but regardless it is a political cocktail that I find particularly unappetizing.
Gattigap
