I think you hit upon an important point. A lot of the ambivalence over socons isn't caused by the positions they advocate, even though pro-life-related gaffes by pro-lifers are much more damaging than the ordinary kind. That ambivalence is caused by the fervency.
I watched a bit of this year's Democratic Convention, and it might as well have been a salespersons' convention. Snicker if you want - I did - but it does show that the Dems have a good idea of what kind of enthusiasm works in politics. So do the Republicans. The kind of fervency that benefits the cause is some kind of rally-ho. Other kinds of fervency tend to be off-putting.
A lot of ordinary liberals delight in unveiling put-downs, and I'm still wondering why it hasn't been hurting the Dems. Americans are legendary for responding to a putdown with the flying finger.
Although putdowns are more lethal politically in the long term, it's also a turnoff to come across as a yeller. People hate putdowns, but they don't like being yelled at either. Fervency that comes across as yelling will not be greeted with open arms and stoutened hearts - except amongst those who are already part of the faithful. The only exception to this rule is an "official victim" group. Regardless of how true Evangelicals have been treated - and I know they've been treated badly - they don't get the bye unless they get the designation. As of now, they haven't.
I'm throwing these opinions out as points to ponder.
Yes. I think what you’re saying here is very elucidating—it’s really the fervency above all, that’s off-putting.
The GOP would help improve its image vastly IMO by not being seen as the Religion Party (which doesn’t mean being anti-religion either).