Oh, I'm hearing what you're saying, but I'm not the one who picked this fight. You did, when you threw out the "ideological purity" canard.
Don't insult my intelligence by assuming that I'm unaware that that phrase is code for, "quit whining about your precious, outmoded principles and get on board with the modern Republican party."
You want to look at this through the 'business as usual' lens of partisan politics. I'm telling you that the situation in this country has moved well beyond that. The civil systems laid down by the Framers are now nothing more than a sham that is FUBAR.
The power brokers and elites in Washington aren't going to allow the people a real voice in government if they can help it. Just observe what happened in the House Speaker vote and the Cromnibus just before that. The will of the people was effectively thwarted on both counts, and those are just two recent examples. There are countless others.
If the American people want a restored republic, they're going to have to go well outside the civil systems we're accustomed to. Those systems are darn near hopelessly compromised at this point.
The point I'm making is, using the well-worn thinking and calculus of American politics won't get us to the promised land because the elites don't play fair. We've got to realize that, and act accordingly.
In my view, it's high time we turned over the card table and kicked some card shark ass.
In the meantime, if we must play along with the elites and their subverted system, then we at least should vote for candidates who represent our values - and NONE others. That at least sends the ruling class the message that we're done playing ball their way.
When I spoke of "ideological purity" I was not using it in the sense that the GOP establishment an talking heads use it. I was speaking strictly in terms of litmus tests that effect the logjam of otherwise presentable candidates from the conservative wing of the party. If you were paying attention the last two times around, it was exhausting.
What ended up happening was we had three or four acceptable challengers to Romney on the right. Every time one of them put and daylight between himself and the rest, the other two or three and his (or her) supporters ganged up on the frontrunner. That's how we ended up with Romney, and its how Reagan would probably lose the nomination in today's climate. Any time he built a lead, the debate would focus on his amnesty and abortion history, and he'd be done.
When Reagan ran in 1980, he was the conservative alternative to George Bush, John Anderson, Bob Dole and Howard Baker. That's not what we have today. The pack is on the right. The outlier is in the middle.