That's an interesting analogy. May I?
Republicans are McD's, and Demmy's are Pepsico (Taco bell, KFC, etc.) One caters to whitebread America, the other to a broad spectrum of special interest "tastes."
Buchanan, we'll say, used to run a Whataburger knock-off chain in Texas.
McDonalds -or- Taco Bell ain't healthy, but it tastes good, and makes the government fatter. If Whataburgers took off (or could take off) nationwide and beat out McD's or Taco Bell, would the government -really- get thinner on "Whatachickens?" No, they'd sell more burgers, too, and the spiral would start again.
Government is a consumer-driven free market, just like fast food. And sometimes a populace gets the government it deserves!!!!
(Me? I hate McDonald's.)
If people don't like the menu put forth by McD's, Pepsico and the pitchforker burger shack they can always simply stay home and eat there.
Yes, and it should be treated as such.
Those three chains don't automatically deserve your patronage. They should have to compete and earn it.
However, to listen to them talk you owe them your business simply by virtue of the name on their sign out front.