"Irrelevant" was your word, not mine. They are relevant only in the sense that they are the enemy within. We can appeal to ALL people if we just refuse to take any meaningful ideological stance. However, when we get someone elected, it's impossible to tell what they'll do or what direction they'll go. But I guess that's okay as long as they put "R" behind their name.
This is not a church, the end result is not salvation.
No, but the end result may very well be extinction. There is no need to apologize for being conservative, nor is there any need to compromise. We don't need people who aren't going to support us anyway. If you're not with us on doctrinaire principles, then you're only a fellow traveler at best. In the coming fight, we need people we can count on, not Olympia Snowe.
We need some things done in reality, not in heaven. For that you need these people.
We don't "have" those people. Olympia Snowe votes with the GOP only about as often as she votes with the Dems. How is she on "our" side?
“They are relevant only in the sense that they are the enemy within.”
They are not the “enemy”. They are merely people with a different set of attitudes and opinions. They are not even such different opinions as, say, the 50% that are indubitably on the other side. They are extremely relevant in the business of getting a majority.
“nor is there any need to compromise”
If there is no compromise in policies or political dealing there is no meaningful politics. “No compromise” assumes an expectation of a unanimity that will never happen.
“If you’re not with us on doctrinaire principles, then you’re only a fellow traveler at best.”
There is no such thing as “doctrinaire principles” to a proper conservative. Conservatism by its nature is based on realism, not principle, it is an anti-ideology. You would benefit a great deal by sitting down with this -
http://www.constitution.org/eb/rev_fran.htm
“Olympia Snowe votes with the GOP only about as often as she votes with the Dems. How is she on “our” side?”
50% is better than the alternative, who would vote with us at best 10%. This is not about ours being pure. We merely need to get our way. That is real politics, the bargaining among persons with interests that don’t overlap.
Part of the problem here is that we don’t have a European-style parliamentary system, where one can have ideologically pure parties that form coalitions with others that are distinct.
It makes some sense to maintain purity in such a scheme, to maintain the tribal identity aspect of belonging, as the internal bargaining can happen among dissimilar groups. There is no expectation of loyalty or mutual identity between the groups in such coalitions, its all business.
But here our grand coalitions are permanently “Republicans” and “Democrats”, which adds an element of confusion. We need to keep it clear in our minds that these are in fact coalitions consisting of very dissimilar people and interests, coexisting for the sake of expected results, even if only to block our mutual opponent. Any attempt at ideological tribalism is self-defeating, it amounts to breaking the coalition for the sake of internal issues of identity.