I did not read your post yesterday but I will seek it out.
As for “single-issue republicans” - allow me to clarify myself. There were individuals who felt that because they opposed me in one area they must oppose me in all others.
Frankly, I had a letter to the editor published in which I attempted to stress that conservatism was not monolithic and I used a conservative argument for extending civil marriage to homosexuals as an example. This led some people to believe I was now a dire enemy and that they were duty bound to oppose every action I attempted to take. This sort of obstructionism even extended to opposing requests that I had made to erect stop sign in my neighborhood. Even traffic safety considerations had to bend to their desire to oppose me.
Those people made a firm decision that one point of disagreement made me 100% traitor.
You can’t work with that.
If I didn’t know them so well before that incident it would be almost impossible for me to believe that these people were really interested in working for the common welfare.
And I do believe this is becoming endemic in GOP circles. Did you see the debate last night between Liz Cheney and Joan Walsh? (Welsh? She’s from Salon.com) They were both asked what they might possibly have in common. Liz Cheney pushed back HARD saying that they had NOTHING in common. Joan Welsh was able to say that she felt they both at least desired to keep America safe and that Hezbollah losing in the elections was a good thing.
Who looked more reasonable there?
As for why there is a nearly universal Hegelian split in political positions ... well .. I have my own theories about that but they are also firmly grounded ion my understanding of human psychology. As such they almost certainly reveal more about my personal psychology than they do about that situation. *grin* An eternal circle. If I have any useful ideas or reading I will pass them along.
I'm afraid we're going to have very little in common after all.