“Is the Republican party going to be one of fiscal conservatism, social conservatism, both or neither?”
The third leg must be added: National Security.
Reagan convinced the voters that he represented enough of ALL THREE legs, for them to select him twice and in sort of carryover mode, GHW Bush once and GW Bush twice.
Throughout those five terms clearly the GOP stood for better policies on ALL THREE legs, most of the time.
If the GOP wants back in the game, they simply have to advocate and support better policies on ALL THREE legs.
The wheels sort of fell off under GW Bush.
The GOP doesn’t need to rid itself of anybody; it needs to restate and simply support conservative policies.
Conservatives outside the GOP stand no chance, except patting each other on the back for attention. Third party votes are wasted votes, IMO.
“The third leg must be added: National Security.”
True, but what *IS* “national Security”?
Is it strong borders?
an effective anti missile system?
spreading democracy?
M.A.D.?
a permanent strategic foothold in the Middle East?
being the world’s policeman and sole superpower?
In other words -merely not being attacked on one end of a spectrum and inculcation and/or imposition our values of democracy and free enterprise any and everywhere (stipulating that a wider spread of ‘American Values’ would make us safer) on the other where should we be?
Do you have to agree with the goals of the Project for a New American Century, then, to be “conservative”, or is a simple commitment to securing our borders and maintaining creditable retaliatory capability against any attack enough?
I think it was easier to define National Security when we had the USSR.
Not that I pretend to have opinions any more valid than anyone else on here, just suggesting that the term may not mean the same thing to all self identified conservatives
And the chances of the GOP doing exactly that are?????
Based upon recent history, I am not holding my breath.