Strong-Man on Horseback... I'd thought about that, too, even before I ellipsed the rest of your first paragraph.
And considering how eye-to-eye they see social issues... he'd have the Tax-Cut Businessmen, the homosexuals, and the race hustlers all lined up on his side. ~~ You have a truly morbid imagination. Hopefully, you're not prophetic.
Well, I'm probably not... except, as an Economist might say, "at the margins" -- which is where Liberals usually make their gains. But I doubt I am in any way "prophetic" (which is a hubris I rarely claim anyway; my hubris runs towards an overconfidence in my Intellect, not in my talent for Prophecy). If anything, I don't think "prophetic" is even the issue here -- more like "historic".
Have not many eminent PaleoConservatives commented upon the resemblances between the Pax Romana and the Pax Americana? You yourself once favored Pat Buchanan; and you probably know I favor Joseph Sobran (Sobran is, at the same time, both more Reactionary and more Radical than Buchanan. As am I).
Modern Liberals basically abhor America. You know this. I know this. But I dare to say, the American Electorate is learning this too. Even a consummately brilliant campaigner like Bill Clinton had to pretend to NOT be a Liberal in order to win 43% of the vote. Americans no longer desire Hard-Liberals (who are now dead) nor Hard-Conservatives (who have been dead a long, long time).
We don't envision the Puritan Conservative "Shining City" anymore. We don't envision the Liberal Socialist "New Order" anymore. We just want our Bread and Circuses. (Show me I'm wrong. PLEASE. Show me, don't tell me.)
In Classical Rome, there was no place for a Party which favored the annihilation of the Roman System (such as modern liberals -- who court electoral doom without mass immigration, which most Americans oppose). Rather, two Parties (well, four or more, but the lessers were just match-makers) competed for the Loyalty of the Mass: the Patricians, and the Imperialists.
AT the present time, traditional union-marxist Economic Socialism is against the ropes (as opposed to the socio-cultural liberalism which has been embraced by Republican Patricians, and tolerated by Republican Imperialists). Howard Dean will almost certainly take the Democratic Nomination (Dean is not a juggernaut. Rather, his opponents are infantile, impotent nincompoops), and then he will almost certainly lose -- leaving Bush in control.
And then -- more of the same.
IMHO, what we see over the past few years is not a great competition between Democrats and Republicans. Even Clinton, economically at least, governed like a Bond-Market Republican -- FAR MORE than "conservative" Bush.
Rather, we see a competition between Patricians and Imperialists. Liberals (with the exception of Bush's Education and Medicare Bills, which are half-measures to them) have not been in Power in 25 years. And I think that it is fair to say, by any substantive (that is, more than 1% of GDP) measure, we have not seen a single Conservative Bill passed in 20 years.
It's Patricians versus Imperialists, Division of Spoils, all over again. Arnold Schwarzenegger fits in just fine. Does this mean it's the "Fall of the Roman Empire"? Of course not!! That's not for 400 years yet. This is when it is just getting fun -- the beginnings of Legal Sanctions against Christianity.
Lick your chops, Simba... if you thought 40 million abortions was pretty cool, we may have seen nuthin' yet....