I guess the strangest detour this thread has taken is away from looking at some particular policy, that some people think there is a single orthodox definition of Conservatism, and it is theirs, and everyone else is not a Conservative.
If they reprsent a majority of Conservatives, then no wonder so many Conservatives do not do well with making alliances with other Conservatives, compete against each other in elections, split their ranks and leave their most common foe the ability to win on a mere plurality.
At one point social Conservatives gave up that aproach, built a base in the GOP, allied with others in the GOP and won many victories, even as they accepted all was not perfect.
What happened?
“What happened?”
We learned from experience that our allies were only using us to advance their agendas, and had no interest in a quid pro quo to help advance our agendas. Instead, the RINOs counted our votes as in the bag and got accustomed to backstabbing Conservatives at every opportunity.
If I were feeling cynical, I’d say they probably planned all along to simply contain the Conservative movement and control it, thinking they could eventually pander their way into getting enough moderate, latino, or whatever votes to replace ours.
Another thing to consider is simply the nature of moderates. They try to find a middle ground between the major opposing views, so as the left drifted further left, the moderates also naturally drifted left to maintain a balance. So, while the moderates in our party were still fairly conservative on social issues 30 years ago, now the gulf between us has widened. For example, it’s not as if the Conservatives suddenly oppose gay marriage, creating a divide, it’s that the moderates suddenly support it.