The latest bit of analysis from STRATFOR just hit the WMD Mailbag and here is the thrust of the piece:As the evangelicals battle among themselves over the movement's relationship with the Republican Party and wrangle over climate change, Guantanamo detainees, the relative importance of poverty and other issues on the periphery of the movement, Republicans are beginning to debate the type of relationship they want to have with evangelicals generally, and with the various evangelical factions specifically. Given the strategic impasse between the party and evangelicals, the GOP will likely conclude that its best interest is served by parting ways with the evangelicals. Whether this is the wisest decision for the long term is another story.There is nothing really earth shattering in the piece, but I find the idea of a conservative crackup to be something of a hoax.
If social conservitives (also known as "Evangelicals") decide to "stick it" to the Republican Party for whatever reason, the GOP will lose again. But here is the thing, the only place for the Evangelicals to go is the Republican Party. What I am getting at is that both sides of this coalition need to realize that they need the other in order to win. Judging ideological purity as the end-all-be-all characteristic of whether or not a particular candidate is "worthy" is ultimately self-defeating.
I'm not advocating that anybody should surrender their principles. Rather what I am saying is that in the end, the GOP is going to pick a candidate and if either side of the colaition expects to advance any part of their agenda they will get behind whomever that candidate is... Why? President Hillary isn't going to be interested in smaller government, conservative social issues, or a strong national defense. President Obama will not be a champion of lower taxes, pro-life issues, or a strong policy against illegal immigration.
Ronald Reagan always tried to work the coalition towards unifying behind issues which we could all work together. Reagan would never turn away from someone who agreed with him 80% of the time. And he certainly wouldn't disrespect fellow Republicans with whome he had a disagreement. That is not how the debate should be won.
Since I've mentioned Reagan, let's bring up the Reagan Democrats:
Complicating matters for the Republican Party is the observation that Democrats are beginning to win back the support of the so-called Reagan Democrats -- middleclass whites who tended, before 1980, to vote with labor candidates, but who were attracted to Reagan (and the Republican Party afterward) based on national defense issues. Bill Clinton faired well with Reagan Democrats, even if the Democratic Party did not. Now, with the conduct of the war in Iraq contested and with neither social conservatism nor economic libertarianism appealing to them, Reagan Democrats are more broadly returning to the Democratic Party.I have no idea what they are basing this analysis on...surely not a single election cycle... But here is the thing, if the Reagan Democrats are deemed to be significant enough of a block that they will win an election, perhaps we ought to consider what it is they are looking for and give it equal weight as we do the Evangelicals. Or am I dreaming again?
This is Big League politics...the Art of the Deal...the Science of the Possible... We can either get this or we can suffer another long term of Democrats ruling the free world. Do Reagan Democrats or the Evangelicals really want that?
