The media and democrats will use the split, and it appears
GOP candidates are only too happy to assist them.
Reagan was a great force, and his party unified under his leadership.
Reagan understood the balance between principle and pragmatism, to win and govern.
1) I can take a pragmatic approach and form a political coalition. I can make deals with Libertarians, business owners, certain minority groups, and certain social activists. I can cobble together enough votes to win a political election and achieve power.
I can do that by being pragmatic -- but will my hands be too tied to govern effectively? What kind of deals did I really have to make?
2) I can make political decisions and exert political authority in pragmatic ways to help the nation. I cut cut spendign where it needs to be cut. I can eliminate stupid regulations. I can avoid $1T deficits. I can keep us out of expensive foreign nation-building adventures. I can do the things that are necessary.
I can do that by being pragmatic -- but could someone like that get elected? Too many stakeholders would turn up their nose: "What's in it for me?" And then the votes aren't there.
I think electoral politics is dead because the people who can govern in a pragmatic way cannot get elected, and the people who can get elected cannot govern in a pragmatic way. We end up with 2 choices: George W Bush or Barack Obama. They got elected, and they made choices that have hurt the country. The men are different in many ways, but each in his own way lacked the ability to make the hard choices. All they could really manage to do was win the election.
And that's why we're screwed.