GOP Group Relationships Part Deux

 Because it would be interesting to try to see where we collectively are in and around that Venn diagram.

It could also be rearranged somewhat to align with Pounelle's Politcal Axes.

 The diagram above represents "GOP tribes" who are working for goals and principles rather than against them, so I have not created a formal Anti-McCain Republican group.

I  believe you have the correct approach. This is a group that is focused on McCain right now but would normally fall somewhere in Bush-Reagan-Goldwater circles. They are united in their dislike of McCain but also in their determination to support him in the face of an unthinkable alternative. Fear is their motivator.

Call me Pangloss, but I would challenge the Anti-McCain Republicans to ask themselves whether they can look forward to the next generation (such as Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty, Sarah Palin, et al) and accept that McCain is in fact the best of all possible Republican candidates for this particularly precipitous moment in history.

There is quite a bit of discussion about Jindal and Palin among the informed base. They are both seen as viable "future" top of the ticket prospects. McCain would be a stopgap in this scenario until a young leader is ready. Neither would be considered a hindrance as VP, although both are seen as needing experience.

I don't know how large a percentage of the base the "fear" vote represents but I think it will grow as realization of what Obama represents becomes more widely known.

This coalition-type view of the party reminds me of what always disturbed me (irrationally?) about parliarmentary governments: the idea that "the coalition" has to stick together or "the government" will fall apart (or that a Prime Minister can "put together a new government' if his coalition disolves).

Mainly comes from before I really understood how such things work (which assumes I actually understand how they do work now . . .);  but for the ideological purist in me, the thought of having to "get along to get anywhere" is frustrating.

But what do I care? I'm not in government.

I love the diagram. I'm gratified that Bush is to the left, and Huckabee is even further to the left (I don't assume that this was intentional, however). And I'm also gratified that the principles labeled "Goldwater" are at the (a?) center.

Most of all, I'm lovin' the "Neo-libertarian" circle's being distinct from the "Paleo-libertarian." It's nice to have a home of one's own.

Is McCain in Bush's circle?

Where does Rudy Giuliani stand?

What about James Dobson?

Two points:

1.  Who cares what the different Republicans support, it is what they do once they are in office.  There does not seem to be many Republicans who care about fiscal issues, personal freedom, or even national security once they are in office.  Remember, the presumptive nominee wants to be big on national security at the same time he supports open borders and unlimited immigration.  John McCain and most of the Republicans in Congress appear to be too stupid to realize that you cannot have real national security without controlling the borders.

2.  Less than 50% of the voters in the U.S. fit into any of the circles in the diagram.  How can any conservative party survive open borders and unlimited immigration coupled with black and Hispanic birthrates that are higher than whites.  How can the Republican Party survivie when the number of private sector employeed whites continues to decline as a portion of the population?

First, I think you are allowing a liberal talking point to define Nixon and status-quo Republicans. There are certainly people who have the "win at any cost" mentality, but I think members from any group actually can drift into that mindset, after they are in power for a while. But Nixon would not "do anything" to be elected. Read the 1972 platform; it was enormously popular, but it wasn't just a laundry list of the most popular issues. It would be more accurate to describe Nixon (or the idealist version of him, as a "Pragmatic Republican." Ike would have fit into this group too. These are people with conservative instincts, but are willing to be quite flexible (whether to win elections or to solve big problems) as the situation dictates. I would put this as a separate group, with Nixon as the leader, and have it intersect with Status-Quo, Bush, and Progressive Republicans.

Second, I was wondering where old-school nativists of the Pat Buchanan type fit in? Nationalist-isolationists, if that makes any kind of sense. But people for whom immigration is issue #1, and people who are quite socially conservative but very happy to use government power to invervene against free trade and for tariffs and other subsidies that they feel strengthen the American economy. If i had to give them their own circle, it would intersect with the Huckabee circle and with the Paleo-Libertarians.

Third, where do people like Douthat and Salam's "Sam's Club" Republicans go? They are like a cross between Huckabee Republicans and Progressive Republicans.

Finally, in reference to independants and conservative dems, I have to figure out where I would go. I am a midwestern, bullshit disliking, anit-elitist, anti-ideological person. Optimism and skepticism (which are in no way mutually exclusive) would be the two words that define me best. I probably fall somewhere closest to the Reagan and Goldwater groups. I identified as Republican until about 1997-8, when the Republican congress drifted into total alliance with the corporate crowd, and spent whatever time it wasn't earmarking on the distracting impeachment stuff, which I really considered to be both a tactical mistake and a step away from the Goldwater-ish Republicanism that I kind of identified with.

I would challenge the Anti-McCain Republicans to ask themselves whether they can look forward to the next generation (such as Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty, Sarah Palin, et al) and accept that McCain is in fact the best of all possible Republican candidates for this particularly precipitous moment in history.

I asked myself, and the answer came back in the negative. You might as well have said that Nixon was the best of all possible Republican candidates in 1968.

This has been a valuable tool in identifying different factions in conservatism/Republican Party.  I would suggest a few changes.

One thing I noticed is that without trying, use of force has become a spectrum in this diagram.  Circles closer to the top (excepting the Nixon one which is an abberation) are the most likely to advocate using force (Bush, TR).  At the bottom are those least likely to  advocate use of force (Ron Paul, other libertarians).  And in the middle are Goldwater and Reagan, which makes sense.

Speaking of the Nixon circle, I would argue that the Nixon Reps. aren't an ideological circle, it is a governing style, which is all to prominent these days I might add.  It's more of a concept in evaluating how politicians operate than what guides constituent groups.

As said above, I would add a paleoconservative circle, which intersects with paleo-libertarian and Huckabee circles.  It's archetype is naturally Pat Buchanan.

I am confused as to what the difference between neo-libertarian and Goldwater Republican is.  They both seem to be dedicated to limited government, which could be termed conservative leaning libertarianism.

And finally, I don't see much difference between Bush Reps. and Huckabee Reps.  They both are not opposed to big gov't in the name of security or social issues.  They are both for the same immigration plan.  I think they could be combined under a "social conservative-social gospel" banner, with either one of them as the archetype.

Ask the wrong question and you will get the wrong answer.  The question should not be if McCain meets enough of your list of issues to vote for him versus sit out the election.  Such a decision making process leads nowhere with McCain since he is clearly a liberal and to abstain is essentially to vote for a Dem.  The real question is:  Is McCain the sock puppet of a politician that will bend to our agenda?  http://conservablogs.com/publiusforum/2008/02/07/sock-puppet-for-president/ 

Do you believe McCain is sufficiently malleable on the issues so as not to be damaging to our interests?  I say yes he is and this was proven with the illegal immigration amnesty issue.  Make no mistake, if McCain could slip in amnesty he would, however, he is enough of a seasoned politician to see the world of hurt he would be in to go against the wishes of the people as Clinton did with the tax he promised and then had the nerve to say "that was then and this is now".  McCain has moved to the right on certain issues in order to appease us, the question is does his word mean anything or is he just lie enough to get in the Whitehouse?  That's a hard calculation to make.  Maybe someone has a good example of his behavior on keeping his word.

But you came up with the wrong answer.

Do you believe McCain is sufficiently malleable on the issues so as not to be damaging to our interests?  I say yes he is and this was proven with the illegal immigration amnesty issue. 

McCain has not given an inch on the amnesty issue, he's still as stubbornly insistent on it as ever. This example shows that he is not in the least bit mallable.

McCain has moved to the right on certain issues in order to appease us

I can't think of a single one. It is not in the mans nature to compromise with the right. It is not in his nature not to compromise with the left.

I think people would have differing opinions on a lot of the groups. From my background, Bush Republicans aren't (read: shouldn't be) Republicans; the fact that the party went so far this direction so quickly is one of the reasons I no longer feel at home in the party. I mean, we went from "abolish the department of education" to No Child Left Behind in 7 years!

I think it is useful to have a schematic of all groups who either self-identify as Republicans, conservatives, or allied on at least some issues (be they economic, social, foreign policy, or whatever). Once the list is done, we could even have a little vote which of the groups are/should be considered Republicans.

Republican does not necessarily mean conservative (US political sense) & conservative is not necessarily Republican.