I've been doing some thinking about this recently, and I don't think conservatism sells any more in California, let alone "Republican," so for the time being, we can't think "liberal-vs-conservative" in regard to California politics. As a matter of fact, I think that both in California and nationally, conservatism is essentially dead (at least the Goldwater-Reagan conservative revolution is dead), and it needs to be reborn through a new generation of leadership. I don't see that leadership anywhere, frankly, so until it emerges and clarifies or re-invigorates the conservative political philosophy, I think the incessant attacks on "RINOs" or "Democrats in Republican clothing," are feckless and so "20th Century." I hope that self-proclaimed conservatives start showing more creativity and imagination.
See, post #43 is exactly what I'm talking about. Conservatism in California has atrophied over the last twenty or so years. It's been reduced to a camp of self-marginalized cranks who offer no vision, no positive agenda, no imaginative platform, no inspiring rhetoric. They'd rather call everyone a "RINO" and say "I told you so" then lead the state into a new conservative golden era. Totally useless. California conservatism is feckless and dead, as I said earlier.
I think you mean DICCs -- Dem-servers in conservative clothing.
Little feckless, 20th century correction there. ";^)
I'm glad you defined it as a particular type of conservatism, because the term has been stretched so much that it's almost impossible to define anymore. Despite the fact that many like to distinguish themselves as "real" conservatives (thereby automatically designating everone else as not real), there are multiple varieties of conservatives. Sometimes they overlap and/or join forces. Sometimes they are at odds.
One thing many self-defined "real" conservatives have in common is the fact that they forget one can be a genuine mainstream Republican without being one of the several varieties of dogmatists who occupy both ends of the the "Republican bell curve."
One side of the bell curve is occupied by those who are self-styled "real" conserviatves. On the other side, there are people who are genuine Left-leaning but who, for whatever reason, prefer to be registered Republicans.
What happened in California (and several other states) is that the two ends of the bell curve increased in number over the last 15-20 years. Neither side likes the other and they rarely work together. Those of us who are in the mainstream -- what one might call the top of the Republican bell curve -- are buffeted between the two dogmatic ends.
We don't win elections in California because the various dogmatic factions on the ends of our bell curve are always fighting with each other. As a consequence, the CAGOP has no unified identity or message, so the public hasn't got a clue. While we're fighting amongst ourselves, we let the massive Dem/union machine in this state define us.
I've seen this dynamic play out time and time again in my locality, as well as statewide. When was it that the Republicans gained control of the Assembly for the first time in umpteen years? 1994? 1996? Whenever.
What did they do with their golden opportunity? Pass honest Republican/conservative legislation to demonstrate their worth to the people of California? Work together to solidify their majority? Heck no! Those who occupied the two ends of the bell curve squabbled amongst themselves for two years, fighting over who would be speaker and other nonsense. They were tossed out en masse two years later and it's been all downhill for Republicans in the state ever since.
That is the problem in this state. No gimmick like a recall or special ballot-initiative election is ever going to fix it. The two ends of the Republican bell curve need to find a way to focus on what they have in common, not what divides them. Only then will things begin to turn around.