A Question of Conservative Philosophy

[rhoenix]

Having not found or heard satisfactory answers to this question, I figured I'd ask it here. I ask this because it appears that nowadays, with few exceptions, the agenda of the Religious Right is inextricable from that of purveyors of Conservative philosophy.

How does the U.S. Conservative philosophy of "small government" and "keeping government out of people's lives" fit with pushing to have the governments have a dictum in:

A) who one can and cannot marry (e.g. gay marriage);
or B) what one can and cannot place into their bodies (e.g. the War on Drugs)?

Thank you in advance for your replies.

[Darth Wong]

In any discussion of conservative philosophy, it is probably useful to reference Glenn Beck's list of conservative beliefs:

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=124001

Yes, I know, some of them are stupid and mutually contradictory. But it really is a pretty good summary of what they tell themselves that they believe.

[Rogue 9]

Having not found or heard satisfactory answers to this question, I figured I'd ask it here. I ask this because it appears that nowadays, with few exceptions, the agenda of the Religious Right is inextricable from that of purveyors of Conservative philosophy.

How does the U.S. Conservative philosophy of "small government" and "keeping government out of people's lives" fit with pushing to have the governments have a dictum in:

A) who one can and cannot marry (e.g. gay marriage);
or B) what one can and cannot place into their bodies (e.g. the War on Drugs)?

Thank you in advance for your replies.

The simple answer? It fits because up until now it's had to; if the two interests split, neither would ever gain power. Yes, they're mutually contradictory, but neither civil libertarians nor the religious right would be able to gain political influence without their alliance within the Republican Party.

The predictable backlash of this strategy is finally manifesting itself, however; the Religious Right, being both stupid and intolerant, is doing its damnedest to take over the GOP for itself, driving out other constituencies, shrinking the party, and ensuring its status as a rump party in Congress. There are other factors at work as well, of course, but the evangelical movement is hardly doing itself any favors politically. With current political conditions the Republicans would almost certainly be in the minority anyway, of course, but their reaction to it, namely an attempt to purify the ranks, is making matters worse for them.

[rhoenix]

In any discussion of conservative philosophy, it is probably useful to reference Glenn Beck's list of conservative beliefs:

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=124001

Yes, I know, some of them are stupid and mutually contradictory. But it really is a pretty good summary of what they tell themselves that they believe.

I remember reading this list a while ago; it really is hilarious to re-read it now, with President Obama in office.

However, what that appears to boil down to are attempts at justifying selfishness and fear, very similar to how Creationists try to cherry-pick evidence to support the outcome they like, instead of using the scientific method approach of starting with what is true and creating a hypothesis to explain the facts observed.

It is this mindset that both the Religious Right and the Conservative factions of the Republican Party share, and it has the effect of making them appear as if they are now one and the same faction.

Differing opinions and insights are welcome, as I would like to understand this more.

(EDIT: including reply to Rogue9 to avoid post-spamming)

The simple answer? It fits because up until now it's had to; if the two interests split, neither would ever gain power. Yes, they're mutually contradictory, but neither civil libertarians nor the religious right would be able to gain political influence without their alliance within the Republican Party.

The predictable backlash of this strategy is finally manifesting itself, however; the Religious Right, being both stupid and intolerant, is doing its damnedest to take over the GOP for itself, driving out other constituencies, shrinking the party, and ensuring its status as a rump party in Congress. There are other factors at work as well, of course, but the evangelical movement is hardly doing itself any favors politically. With current political conditions the Republicans would almost certainly be in the minority anyway, of course, but their reaction to it, namely an attempt to purify the ranks, is making matters worse for them.

So essentially, what you've observed is that the Religious Right has actually co-opted the Conservative movement altogether, and is in the process of consolidating their power as the dominant faction of the Republican Party (to its detriment)?

This seems similar to how things occurred with Barry Goldwater vs. Ronald Reagan, only with a few more added qualities of stagnation to the Goldwater-esque party (Republican, ironically) right now.

[Knife]

My take is that they know small government or less government will lead to a hole or gap in...well governance but want or expect their religion to step in and fill in the vacuum left by no secular central authority. They hearken back to the 'good old days' (that never really existed) where little hamlets of people lived in godly bliss with their farms providing all the food they need, their mill down by the river gave em wood for their buildings they made from the trees god gave them, and there in the middle of town was the lily white church where they met for Sunday service, huddled in in emergency and even possibly all converged at for local governance. Ah, the good old days where they didn't have to worry about those uppity Federalists.

I also feel the Conservative Movement in the Republican Party absorbed quite a few libertarians that further reinforce these views. Once government, or at least 'others' government that can stop them from doing what they want in 'their towns' is out of the way and the 'church' is installed as back up, and everyone has the same 'values' they do, church law is enough to keep them all in line...er save their souls.

[rhoenix]

My take is that they know small government or less government will lead to a hole or gap in...well governance but want or expect their religion to step in and fill in the vacuum left by no secular central authority. They hearken back to the 'good old days' (that never really existed) where little hamlets of people lived in godly bliss with their farms providing all the food they need, their mill down by the river gave em wood for their buildings they made from the trees god gave them, and there in the middle of town was the lily white church where they met for Sunday service, huddled in in emergency and even possibly all converged at for local governance. Ah, the good old days where they didn't have to worry about those uppity Federalists.

I also feel the Conservative Movement in the Republican Party absorbed quite a few libertarians that further reinforce these views. Once government, or at least 'others' government that can stop them from doing what they want in 'their towns' is out of the way and the 'church' is installed as back up, and everyone has the same 'values' they do, church law is enough to keep them all in line...er save their souls.

...Not to sound facetious, but that explanation sounds like the Religious Right yearn for the Dark Ages, when the Catholic Church ran Europe. I can't think of another pertinent period of history that fits.

If that's the case, then that really does make sense, as the same points of view were prevalent.

[SirNitram]

None of it jives. That's the whole reason it's descending into madness.

Look. Big Business wants tiny, anemic government. Religious Right wants a government which can goosestep into your bedroom. Cavaliers(Basically, the 'War and warriors are so frickin' AWESOME!' crowd of fanboys) want a big military. Neocons want to violently thrust democracy onto other countries at the point of a gun. Libertarians want a small federal budget. Xenophobes want to just oppress anyone whose not a member of, and I quote one of conservatisms own members in good standing on this, the white male power structure.

That list can't fit together. You simply can't balance the contradictions. Reagan was charismatic enough to weld it into a destructive entity that bloated the deficit and debt, meddled overseas militarily, deregulated everything in sight, and fused all possible Others as enemies of this glorious golden age he imagined and enthralled people with. But without anyone like him since 1982, the present was unavoidable. Especially when they won the government entirely and actually enacted their promises.

And the really pitiful thing? The positively ridiculous part? 2010 will still be a fight and a hard election year. After all this.

[Prannon]

I think some people on this board are trying a little too hard to make Conservatism fit into a logical box. Make government smaller so that religion can fill the place? Please. Too logical for a heavily faith influenced movement.

Firstly, it's important to know that conservatives are by-and-large religious Christians, or at least I was. Christians believe that a "wholesome" society defined by self-reliance, hard work, and strong moral values is more durable and long lasting than a society defined by the "chaos" of liberalism. For example, conservatives believe that abortion is murder. It lowers the birthrate, prevents fresh and possibly brilliant minds from being born, and it's just wrong. It deprives society of potential that would otherwise make it strong (underlying this belief is that American society, versus other societies, needs these strengths to survive; racist undertones). Gay marriage? It will lead to familial chaos and undermine our children's development. Lower birthrates, lack of order, lack of wholesomeness, and so on and so forth. Plus it just isn't natural! We weren't designed that way.

These conservatives then look at liberals and Democrats and balk because they see them undermining the foundations of our society as they see it, know it, and wish it to remain. And then they see liberals increasing the size of our government and allowing people who don't work as hard and aren't self reliant to live off the government teat. This leaves less of an incentive for people to work hard and rely on themselves. So, the government needs to "get out of the private individual's" way, or rather, get out of business' way, so that the economy can grow and positive social attributes can be encouraged.

At the same time, conservatives see big government as liberal government. Liberal government is a persecuting government because it is attacking the foundation of wholesome Christian America! Remember, the US is a Judeo-Christian nation and maintains by default Christian institutions that define it (see above). So, conservatives encourage the election of good, religious Christians so that they can promote the anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage agenda that is so vital to preserving the society that has made the US stable and prosperous. In that sense, enforcing conservatism on today's America isn't making the government larger. To the religious conservative, it is actually preventing the government from changing the cultural status quo.

So really, the way that "small government" and "good social values" is reconciled is through the simple mindedness and selfishness of the conservatives. Out of sight, out of mind. Because the government isn't enforcing any ideology on them, they believe that it is made smaller in its entirety, not just in economic regulation. Even if someone else objects, "we know better than you! You're un-American! This is what defines America!" So heavy handed nationalism is also at play.

[HamsterViking]

Prannon has a very good point. there isn't really much reason to the Republican party and American conservatism. If conservatives were rational they would probably be liberal. These are the kind of people who make up their minds based on emotion rather than reason. This allows them to live with some pretty illogical or contradicting ideas - because they don't have to think about it logically, just think about what feels right. If you don't understand that, just listen to Colbert talk about "truthiness." Remember, there are more nerve endings in the gut than the brain

[Coyote]

The only way it really works is if the Talibangelicals are hoping that a world without government, where business rushes in to fill the void, will also allow for religion to fill the void as well. All the things that business won't or can't handle-- I can't imagine a big profit margin on, say, soup kitchens and homeless shelters-- the Churches will pick up. In a way it makes sense, since Churches already are running kind of like businesses anyway. They market a commodity, "good feelings/sense of morality/sense of security" in exchange for tithes... as surely as buying a can of soup at the store.

The alliance will last until Church morality absolutely forbids some commodity that is quite profitable, and business interests will unite to fight them.

But the sad truth is, a truly Libertarian society will have already become 'Corporate Feudalism', with the worker-serfs owing allegiance to certain employers and brand names instead of noble-born lords; and corporate hired security gangs instead of knights. And we'll get to reply all of the Dark Ages, with Noble/Company vs. Church this week, or Noble/Company allied with Church next week, and so on.

[Prannon]

But you see Coyote, the conservatives aren't concerned about what might happen in the future. They're concerned about what happened in the past. Things seemed so much more certain and orderly in the past when Christianity was a far more established institution. Why, this must mean that things were better! The Good Old Days myth. They see changes going on all around them, look at their Bible, listen to their Reaganite politicians, and then react.

[rhoenix]

Prannon, Coyote, and HamsterViking - all three of you have my thanks for your replies.

I think Prannon is right in saying that the current state of the Republican electorate or the Conservative leadership is just based on "We lost in 2006 and 2008 because we tried to COMPROMISE!," with willful ignorance of mitigating factors.

As others have said, my hope is that the Republicans eventually do what the Democrats did following the decisive defeat of Barry Goldwater, and that's re-inventing themselves as something newer and more coherent, instead of the "same parts, same model, different paintjob" we've observed now for a few years.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Great, can we be the Barbarians then?

[Pablo Sanchez]

As others have said, my hope is that the Republicans eventually do what the Democrats did following the decisive defeat of Barry Goldwater, and that's re-inventing themselves as something newer and more coherent, instead of the "same parts, same model, different paintjob" we've observed now for a few years.

Sorry, what the fuck are you talking about? Barry Goldwater was a Republican and the Democrat who beat him silly was LBJ. They didn't reinvent themselves at all in consequence of that victory, they just continued the same policies that they'd been following since before Kennedy got shot.

[rhoenix]

Sorry, what the fuck are you talking about? Barry Goldwater was a Republican and the Democrat who beat him silly was LBJ. They didn't reinvent themselves at all in consequence of that victory, they just continued the same policies that they'd been following since before Kennedy got shot.

You are correct, now that I've checked - my apologies.

Ronald Reagan went up against Jimmy Carter in 1980 to gain the Presidency, and defeated Walter Mondale subsequently in 1984. I was thinking of Mondale's significance (mixing up he with Goldwater somehow), after whose defeat the Democratic Party did some soul-searching for political meaning, as I referenced above.

[Prannon]

I have one more comment on the religious brand of conservatism that seems to dominate the Republican Party these days. It occurred to me yesterday. For the religious conservative, there is no debate on right and wrong. God has already defined it, and it is made plain in the Bible. The Bible is the ultimate authority on moral matters. Anything else is a deviation, a temptation, from the rightness portrayed therein. The religious conservative's quest, then, is to avoid any influence from other "wrong" points of view, because these influences are actually temptations from Satan to lead you astray. When Wong mentions paranoid fear on the part of parents that their children might be exposed to liberal thinking he's absolutely right, only their reasoning is that children cannot tell temptation from moral fortitude, and they must be guided in the right direction.

There are many things wrong with this point of view, both from a religious and political standpoint. However, it might help explain why the Republican Party and the religious conservatives that are dominating it at the moment are digging in their heels and crying foul at everything that Obama and the Democratic Party is doing. On top of their emotion-based reasoning, it can make for a most insulated Party indeed.

[The Original Nex]

Sorry, what the fuck are you talking about? Barry Goldwater was a Republican and the Democrat who beat him silly was LBJ. They didn't reinvent themselves at all in consequence of that victory, they just continued the same policies that they'd been following since before Kennedy got shot.

You are correct, now that I've checked - my apologies.

Ronald Reagan went up against Jimmy Carter in 1980 to gain the Presidency, and defeated Walter Mondale subsequently in 1984. I was thinking of Mondale's significance (mixing up he with Goldwater somehow), after whose defeat the Democratic Party did some soul-searching for political meaning, as I referenced above.

They actually didn't really. The Democratic Party continued to shrink as a result of the Reagan coalition and the conservative southern Democrats gradually switching Republican. This trend culminated in the 1994 Midterms in which the Republicans gained control of Congress for the first time in three decades. After that stunning loss, and Clinton needing to constantly tack right in order to pass any of his agenda, led to two different camps in the Dem Party. One holed up and radicalized in the echo chamber, the other wanted to become Republican-light. The left-wing faction was marginalized and the "we're just like Republicans" faction kept running candidates in Congressional elections with little luck.
It wasn't until after the 2004 elections that they finally began to find their legs, and the Bush administration deserves more credit for that than Democratic leadership. Obama and Dean packaged the change brand extremely well and extended it to the party, but the party itself has done little to reshape itself. The epic collapse of the Republicans, more than some soul searching and enlightenment of the Democrats led them back to power.

[Coyote]

I have one more comment on the religious brand of conservatism that seems to dominate the Republican Party these days. It occurred to me yesterday. For the religious conservative, there is no debate on right and wrong. ...
The religious conservative's quest, then, is to avoid any influence from other "wrong" points of view, because these influences are actually temptations from Satan to lead you astray. ...

it might help explain why the Republican Party and the religious conservatives that are dominating it at the moment are digging in their heels and crying foul at everything that Obama and the Democratic Party is doing. On top of their emotion-based reasoning, it can make for a most insulated Party indeed.

There you go. We say it all the time, but sometimes it is still difficult to truly come to grips with. All that pap we hear from the priests and stuff: they believe it. Teaching your children that abortion and gays exist will make them decide to have abortions and become gay. And they'll go off with their gay partners and never give you grandchildren, never pass on your genes/philosophies, the country will go into population decline, we'll be overrun by disrespectful immigrants, and the next thing you know we're a socialist cesspool of brown people. God's light will go out on this country and maybe the world, and if they sit back passively and do nothing, they are doomed to Hell for not protecting God's domain on Earth.

And obviously, we are God's domain on Earth because we are blessed, right? Abundant natural resources, powerful armies, nuclear weapons, peace and prosperity, money, homes in the suburbs, etc. Obviously we are God's favored country because despite thousands (not millions, remember) of years to develop, the brown people have failed to achieve this level of super-duperness. To not defend all this would be to flush God's gift in the toilet and poke him in the eye with your contempt.

And so on.

[Darth Wong]

I have one more comment on the religious brand of conservatism that seems to dominate the Republican Party these days. It occurred to me yesterday. For the religious conservative, there is no debate on right and wrong. God has already defined it, and it is made plain in the Bible. The Bible is the ultimate authority on moral matters. Anything else is a deviation, a temptation, from the rightness portrayed therein.

No, that's what they tell each other. But these are the same people who blithely ignore almost everything Jesus said about the poor, not to mention his harsh critiques of self-righteous Pharisees (people whose description in the New Testament almost exactly matches the behaviour of modern fundamentalists). The reality is that their idea of "right and wrong" is based entirely on cultural norms in their local communities ... when they were children.

There's an old quote by a Dr. Brock Chisholm which says: "Conscience is what your mother told you before you were six years old". That's what we're dealing with here: these peoples' idea of "right and wrong" is not derived from sincere Biblical study but from selective Biblical quoting, designed to reinforce what their mothers told them when they were children.

It's all gut instinct, which they assume to be their natural receptiveness to the will of God but which is actually childhood social conditioning. That's why they're perfectly comfortable condemning gays based on Leviticus while eating pork and lobster, shopping on Sunday before getting drunk while watching the football game, and telling the poor to go fuck themselves. Somebody here once related a story about stumping a fundie by asking him how he knew which parts of the Old Law were merely "ceremonial" as opposed to "moral", but we actually know how they make that determination: it's all based on which parts of the Old Law their parents didn't care about when they were growing up.

[rhoenix]

They actually didn't really. The Democratic Party continued to shrink as a result of the Reagan coalition and the conservative southern Democrats gradually switching Republican. This trend culminated in the 1994 Midterms in which the Republicans gained control of Congress for the first time in three decades. After that stunning loss, and Clinton needing to constantly tack right in order to pass any of his agenda, led to two different camps in the Dem Party. One holed up and radicalized in the echo chamber, the other wanted to become Republican-light. The left-wing faction was marginalized and the "we're just like Republicans" faction kept running candidates in Congressional elections with little luck.
It wasn't until after the 2004 elections that they finally began to find their legs, and the Bush administration deserves more credit for that than Democratic leadership. Obama and Dean packaged the change brand extremely well and extended it to the party, but the party itself has done little to reshape itself. The epic collapse of the Republicans, more than some soul searching and enlightenment of the Democrats led them back to power.

That's actually more disquieting, but thank you for clarifying; I see I'll have to read up a bit more. So essentially, the Democratic Party is only now back in power, but hasn't cohesively reshaped itself. In contrast to the Republicans, who apparently have their steering wheel stuck to the hard right lately. That's a pretty volatile definition of both, and actually does explain a few more things - like the "Blue Dogs."

[Pablo Sanchez]

It wasn't until after the 2004 elections that they finally began to find their legs, and the Bush administration deserves more credit for that than Democratic leadership. Obama and Dean packaged the change brand extremely well and extended it to the party, but the party itself has done little to reshape itself. The epic collapse of the Republicans, more than some soul searching and enlightenment of the Democrats led them back to power.

That's actually more disquieting, but thank you for clarifying; I see I'll have to read up a bit more. So essentially, the Democratic Party is only now back in power, but hasn't cohesively reshaped itself. In contrast to the Republicans, who apparently have their steering wheel stuck to the hard right lately. That's a pretty volatile definition of both, and actually does explain a few more things - like the "Blue Dogs."

Nex is making a hasty generalization about how the Democratic Party won in 2006 and 2008. Disgust with the Republican party certainly played a role, but the changes in strategy undertaken by Howard Dean were at least equally important. Since '94 the Democratic Party had been dominated by the Clinton-influenced Democratic Leadership Council, which concentrated its efforts on a small number of seats which it considered "competitive", and usually ran a bland assortment of centrist Democrats. This decision seemed to make sense because the GOP's fundraising capacity, based on direct-mail campaigns and chummy relationships with big business and the very wealthy, always gave them a much bigger warchest. Dean's innovation was to take fundraising to the internet, which yielded lots of money (though typically still less than the GOP) which he then used to challenge the GOP everywhere he could--the famed "50 State Strategy." This also necessitated bringing a lot of Democrats into the tent who were not Clintonesque centrist wafflers; it was enough that they agreed with the party platform (pro-business liberalism, as opposed to the schizoid Republican platform which is not possible to summarize in a parenthetical phrase!) in general. So there are a number of Democrats who are pro-Life, who are pro-Gun, who are much more fiscally conservative, and so on, but who are more importantly willing to be part of the governing, sensible majority.

As I said, the GOP collapse played a certain role in Democratic success, but by the same token the GOP collapse only became a general rout after the Democratic success.

No, that's what they tell each other. But these are the same people who blithely ignore almost everything Jesus said about the poor, not to mention his harsh critiques of self-righteous Pharisees (people whose description in the New Testament almost exactly matches the behaviour of modern fundamentalists). The reality is that their idea of "right and wrong" is based entirely on cultural norms in their local communities ... when they were children.

The Old Testament is a collection of bronze age myths laid down in writing during the iron age, while the New Testament is an eclectic assortment of books written by various apocalypse cults during the Roman Empire. The idea that the bible could have anything to teach a modern person about how to lead their lives is perfectly ludicrous, as all but the most insane dominionists are (perhaps unconsciously) aware. But the fact that the bible is basically meaningless and written in a dense, repetitive style makes it a superb cipher, which can mean whatever you want it to mean.

[rhoenix]

Nex is making a hasty generalization about how the Democratic Party won in 2006 and 2008. Disgust with the Republican party certainly played a role, but the changes in strategy undertaken by Howard Dean were at least equally important. Since '94 the Democratic Party had been dominated by the Clinton-influenced Democratic Leadership Council, which concentrated its efforts on a small number of seats which it considered "competitive", and usually ran a bland assortment of centrist Democrats. This decision seemed to make sense because the GOP's fundraising capacity, based on direct-mail campaigns and chummy relationships with big business and the very wealthy, always gave them a much bigger warchest. Dean's innovation was to take fundraising to the internet, which yielded lots of money (though typically still less than the GOP) which he then used to challenge the GOP everywhere he could--the famed "50 State Strategy." This also necessitated bringing a lot of Democrats into the tent who were not Clintonesque centrist wafflers; it was enough that they agreed with the party platform (pro-business liberalism, as opposed to the schizoid Republican platform which is not possible to summarize in a parenthetical phrase!) in general. So there are a number of Democrats who are pro-Life, who are pro-Gun, who are much more fiscally conservative, and so on, but who are more importantly willing to be part of the governing, sensible majority.

As I said, the GOP collapse played a certain role in Democratic success, but by the same token the GOP collapse only became a general rout after the Democratic success.

That's an excellent explanation of both my earlier questions, and the anticipated questions I would have asked about how much of an effect Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy had, and how it fit into things. You have my thanks.

As a few follow-up questions to this however,

1) Have the Democrats worked on a more coherent party base platform of issues in recent times, particularly taking into account the change of opinion on various issues (the War on Drugs, gay marriage, etc.)?

2) Has there been any sign at all of the the Republican Party or individual Republicans attempting to do the same (work on a solid, coherent party platform) that doesn't pander to the hard right?

My thanks in advance.

[The Original Nex]

Nex is making a hasty generalization about how the Democratic Party won in 2006 and 2008. Disgust with the Republican party certainly played a role, but the changes in strategy undertaken by Howard Dean were at least equally important.

You're right of course, I didn't give Dean nearly his due credit. The democratic establishment certainly fought him tooth and nail for some time on the 50 State Strategy. Ironically, Emanuel's DCCC strategy of recruiting candidates who don't necessarily fit the progressive mold ended up working well with Dean's national DNC strategy, in spite of the animosity between the two men. The tandem of Dean's new fundraising and voter outreach with Emanuel's preempting conservatives on certain issues by running candidates that fit individual districts both returned many "Reagan Democrats" back under the tent as well as "issue divided" voters who for example; are pro-life but are supportive of a safety net, or support gay marriage but are also worried about the deficit. The DNC/DCCC (the DSCC did well too) strategies ended up working well together to grow the party. Couple this with the disaster the Republicans turned out to be in both the executive and legislative branches and you get the Democratic route in 2006. Then add Obama's national movement, which managed to harness the political prowess of both the Emanuel and Dean camps, and you get 2008.

[Pablo Sanchez]

1) Have the Democrats worked on a more coherent party base platform of issues in recent times, particularly taking into account the change of opinion on various issues (the War on Drugs, gay marriage, etc.)?

Not as such, no. The Democratic Party is kind of amorphous because of the many elected members who hold divergent views on a lot of subjects, but whereas they are more diverse now than they have been in a very long time, historically that's characteristic of American political parties. Since we only have two at a time, they're actually coalitions of different sub-parties. The parties have a platform in theory, but in practice both parties tend to define themselves around the president at the time, either in support or in opposition to him, because he's more or less deciding what is going to go down while he's in office. Obama's policy initiatives can be seen as the "base platform" of the Democratic Party. So just to name the top priorities, Democrats are in favor of health care reform, economic stimulus through infrastructure repair and expansion, disengagement from Iraq but increased commitments to the region in and around Afghanistan, doing a half-assed job on the banking system, and action on renewable energy and global warming.

The change of opinion on issues like the War on Drugs and Gay Marriage is not being represented by either party. On gay marriage, the Democratic Party is adopting a wait-and-see attitude of saying nothing and allowing the issue to be driven at the state level, probably because they got burned by it in 2004. The Republican Party is, of course, vehemently opposed to gay marriage. Both parties are opposed to relaxing the war on drugs, because it's political orthodoxy, but the Republicans are doubtless more aggressive about it.

On any issue the Democrats have a lot of splitters who will go ahead and say their own opinion, like Blue Dogs who don't want to pay for health care reform, but generally they keep the party all moving in the same direction.

2) Has there been any sign at all of the the Republican Party or individual Republicans attempting to do the same (work on a solid, coherent party platform) that doesn't pander to the hard right?

Not really, no. There may be a few moderate Republicans who are trying to figure out a way to move the party back into the middle so it can compete electorally in the 3/4s of the country it's been kicked out of, but I haven't heard about anything serious on that score, not least because anybody who talks about that has to worry about losing the primary to some archconservative jackass.

[Coyote]

The thing is, it seems that the Democratic Party doesn't have a problem with people not being on the same sheet of music. There's a lot of maneuver room among Democrats.

The Republicans, lately at least, have been solidifying more and more the notion that everyone is on the same sheet of music and adhered strictly to all their dogma, or they're run out of the party.

The Democrats may grumble and argue with the Blue Dogs, but they still recognize them as Democrats. The Republicans, on the other hand, drive out people who don't bow to the bosses. Currently, the boss is Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney, with some B-listers such as O'Reilly and Coulter, Brownback, etc.