Sadly we disagree.
From my perspective an institution is defined by its leadership and its current efforts. The Austrian and the Minister of Information define the CAGOP through their actions and its implied intentions.
What they do is the definition of Republican by default. If they toil to increase spending and the size of government, then the CAGOP, by definition, represents bigger government and more spending. If they work to trample party traditions , then the CAGOP is, by definition, progressive.
No, neither the Austrian nor the Minister represent Republicanism in California of just three short years ago but they do today. What you see is what you get. The Austrian is acting like a Republican because his actions define the party.
It's not your father's CAGOP anymore. Give the CAGOP cadre two more generations and members of the Central Committees will be easy to spot. Their right arm will curiously be permanently raised. Their right, index finger will he obviously enlarged. They will be able to instantly and consistently gage the direction that the political wind is blowing. Their left hand will contain 6 digits to better grasp either your campaign donations or your tax return.
Central Committee members will not speak voluntarily nor reveal their personal viewpoint on any significant matter but instead, will open every dialog with subtle probing to gage what you want to hear. All responses to your direct queries will be prefaced with I understand your concerns and agree .. or .. I think you're upset and you have a right .. The highest honor that the CAGOP will bestow upon its membership will be the Committee Membership Award signifying a high level of cooperation and respect for the corporate decision.
A life sized bronze of a previously obscure, CAGOP operative will dominate the entrance to their Grand Reception Hall in Chula Vista. The administrator of their FO account on FreeRepublic.
I think our opinions differ only in how we define "Republican." While your's acknowledges recent phenomena within the Party, I am a bit more optimistic believing it is not a fatal epidemic but, instead, a temporary illness that can be eradicated. (Granted, your definititon strikes me as a bit more realistic.)
An institution may at first be defined by its leadership, but for success it depends on persons within that institution to carry out the proposed mission. When people do not believe in that mission and choose not to follow, the institution will fail. Continuted pursuit of unsavory missions may cause them to abandon that institution permanently, also causing failure.
So, does one accept failure as inevitable or do they try to eradicate the disease?
As to future monuments in So Cal, will those be located along new toll roads for maximum observance by followers?