I do not believe that moderates will snap, and therefore bolt to the democrats. In order to snap, there must be something to snap. Moderates are defined by a lack of core convictions There is no moderate principal to snap.

The way for conservative to win to provlde a strong clear conservative vision. Give the moderate the choice between a clear conservative vision and whatever the democrats muddle together, I say conservatism wins.

I'm neither moderate nor socially conservative (but very anti-left, anti junk science, anti postmodern cargocultism). What bothers me about 'moderates' is the broad brush class distaste for religious conservatives. I understand what they don't like but I think they are wrong on the details.

Most RC and SC are decent folk who base their principles on tradition and religion. I put more trust in rational science than faith, but compared to the cargocultism passing for pop science these days, tradition and religion have a big advantage of being time tested and surviving in the Darwinian sense.

If anything, I would like to separate the SC and RC from the kooks. They're usually the ones claiming to be the real, true conservatives while spouting all manner of imprudent, self destructive and obnoxious dreck.

I agree that the best way to effect conservative social policy is through the "hearts and minds" approach; however, what are we to do when the left uses the law as a club against those of us who are social conservatives? To take your example of abortion, current law was pretty much imposed by the federal government using Roe vs. Wade as the rationale for overturning the laws of all fifty states. And if most Americans are opposed to late term abortions - and most emphatically opposed to the savagery of partial-birth abortions - then how is it that these particular abortions are still with us (everywhere, I believe)? This would not have happened except for bad law, which has had the effect of making abortions of all kinds, and for all reasons, acceptable to society at large (who says you can't "legislate morality"?)
At some stage, there is inevitably a point at which social concerns and the machinery of legislation intersect, and it is perhaps unfortunate, but not at all surprising, that the most important issues are always going to be confrontational. But what irritates this social conservative is not the fact that moderates won't go along on abortion and/or other social issues: such differences notwithstanding, there is still plenty of room for strategic alliances on other important matters, such as smaller government, a more rationale tax code, and so forth. What annoys is the occasional undercurrent of belief among moderates that social conservatives should be willing to permanently play down what, to them, are life and death issues, in order to score a string of lesser victories.

Good Morning (I'm in Tucson),
A few simple points,
I agree with most of what you said, I tend to agree with the INDC-Hugh Hewitt approach to coalitions, very simple and common sensical-I will vote for the Republican 9 out of 10 times, whether or not he is socially liberal. So much can still be accomplished with way, judges and tort reform, not to mention taxes.

I stated before, even after your snide remarks, I know very well what it takes to build a successful political coalition, my issue with what you said was the wisdom of dissing the base to make your point. Childish threats just don't cut it if you really believe what you said about political coalitions. You claim to understand them (coalition) and then you take a pot shot at your fellow coalition members. Not a very wise way to maintain a coalition (it simply contradicted every ounce of wisdom you claimed to have when it comes to political reality and coalitions), but I appreciate the clarification you posted today.

There is a mutual benefit to those within this party if we stick together, as you seem to be saying, it is better that we get what we agree on and split the difference on what we don't (abortion), so that we as a whole continue to move forward.

Let me also state that morality for the most part has been defined, we have to choose to either defend it or abstain from the fight and let others change it as to make it undefinable.

The True King Carlos
Phd in GED

As long as most people can comfortably live in denial about what abortion really does, outlawing it doesn't stand a chance. After all it was the Supreme Court's greatest gift ever to men, young and old. Especially now, with DNA testing! Hell it could completely discommode a guy's promising career (or marriage) if the girlfriend foals...child support services will hound you forever. No sloughing it off on some other guy now, no sirree. Get rid of it, no problem! How on earth did people cope prior to Roe???

Good entry and I'm glad to see you posting about something you feel passionately about.

However, I'm going to disagree with you on this one just like I disagreed with you on the volatile abortion entries that enabled me to find your blog in the first place last year. I'll tread softly since your next entry will discuss judicial activism, but there are at least 2, probably 3 major issues that Roe v. Wade violates that Christian Republican's cannot tolerate.

1) As Christians it is our duty to cherish all life and protect life, specifically human life in all its forms. By permitting and encouraging abortion, yes claiming the desire to make abortion limited, safe and rare is still encouraging abortion. It encourages abortion by admitting that it's a bad thing, but we know you're going to do it so we'll give you the tools to do so anyway. This is not somewhere that Christian Republicans can negotiate in good faith.

2) As a Republican, Roe v. Wade usurped the rights of the States to create law that did not exist and has never existed in the Constitution. There was no legislative bill passed that they defended, there was no precedent to follow. What did happen was a highly divisive 5-4 decision that created a law that encouraged a version of morality, one that says death is better than discomfort. One of the biggest issues facing America is that we care so much about the individual and what we want that we often neglect the big picture. Many among us decided that we wanted to make abortion legal to protect women because some would risk their lives to have an abortion anyway. That is what the state legislature and a referendum is for; to enable the people to speak in the best interests of society and enable it to protect itself. The consequences of allowing the Supreme Court to make law is still felt today as we have seen in several examples, such as the Court's recent ruling on Guantanamo detainees.

3) With the constant influx of illegal immigration and relatively low birth rates to counter such immigration there are an increasing number of families that grow up in the United States that are not American and will never consider themselves to be American. The future of the nation as the United States of America and not as several nations broken up because we no longer have a common belief system is at stake.

I think when we talk about who is likely to bolt and who isn't, we need to look at the social structure of the two groups. The social conservative wing of the party tends to be far more exclusionary than the libertarian wing. I would be very surprised if the libertarians could focus their energies to the degree needed to form a consensus and go off in a huff. The religious right is far more likely to split off from the middle than the middle from the right.

my issue with what you said was the wisdom of dissing the base to make your point. Childish threats just don't cut it if you really believe what you said about political coalitions. You claim to understand them (coalition) and then you take a pot shot at your fellow coalition members.

Once again, where exactly was my "pot shot?"

Was it this?

So, if you're a dead red righty, please recall my admonition as that next giddily satisfying "RINO" joke rolls off the tip of your tongue - we'll cut you.

This is an admonition against "pot shot(s)" coupled with a JOKE. I didn't insult anyone.

Your defensiveness is ridiculous. If you have a problem with the article that I linked stating "not down with JC" as a pot shot, identify that author, not me.

My "childish threat" was also meant to be lightly stated, a not-entirely-serious expression of frustration. And once again, notice that the admonition did not contain any snide attack on social conservatives for their views or religion. One man's childishness is another's sense of humor, I suppose.

Do not despair - leading medical researchers are furiously working on the ability to grow artificial senses of whimsy and humor, so that they might be implanted in needy individuals such as yourself at a later date.

I see very little chance of the split happening, because when you come right down to it, I don't think the social libertarians are going to find it that tough to live with the Christian Conservatives. You point out that 90% of all abortions occur in the first trimester; doesn't that indicate by the reasoning in Roe that the other 10% can be banned? Remember, too, that if Roe is overturned (as it should be, it's terrible law) all that will do is shift the battle to the states, where, my guess is that it will slowly die as an issue. If Brown v. Board of Ed were overturned today, would the South go back to segregation? Not on your life!

Your comment about the 1986 midterms proving something is just silly; you're not seriously trying to argue it was moderates turning away from Reagan? In fact, what happened was that the 1980 election swept into office a bunch of weaker Republican senators who got swept out again 6 years later when Ronald Reagan was not on the ballot to protect them. This is the real reason for the midterm "curse" (and why there will be no midterm reversal for the Republicans in 2006, because Bush did not sweep into office a bunch of weak candidates).

I'm pretty much moderate myself. But if you ask me whom I fear more, the religious right or the libertine left, it's a pretty easy choice. And I can't imagine the moderate in you has seen anything attractive in the Democratic Party since the election.

I'm against faux outrage in all it's forms, and I'm against a lot of what I suspect is authentic outrage from social conservatives aimed at bullying compliance in taste.

Mixing morality with aesthetics is often a dangerous formula.

...and I'm against a lot of what I suspect is authentic outrage from social conservatives aimed at bullying compliance in taste.

Amen, brotha. See: Powerline's and Barber's "takes" on Chris Rock at the Oscars. Sheesh.

doesn't that indicate by the reasoning in Roe that the other 10% can be banned?

Yes. But as my second trackback indicates, there is a second precedent that causes problems. As a pro-choicer, I would have no problem banning late term abortions, with strict exceptions for the physical health of the mother, in addition to cases of rape and incest.

you're not seriously trying to argue it was moderates turning away from Reagan? In fact, what happened was that the 1980 election swept into office a bunch of weaker Republican senators who got swept out again 6 years later when Ronald Reagan was not on the ballot to protect them.

You say toma-to, I say tomah-to. This election was indicative of the electorate's natural embrace of gridlock, weak candidates, as well as Reagan's inability to maintain moderates. Presidential ticket or no, midterms are always regarded as a referendum on the Presidency.

And social conservative sure as hell didn't bolt from the GOP, or by extension, the Gipper's agenda.

Yes, yes "de gustibus non est disputandum" and all that, I tend to agree. But it's one thing to simply decry the exhibition of bad taste - which is what I believe Powerline and Barber were doing - and trying to "bully compliance in taste", which is what I assume Jeff thinks someone, somewhere on the right must be trying to do (and no doubt he is correct in his belief; the puritanical we will always have with us). However, I think even our most ideological libertarian friends would concede to us the right to express "outrage", if that's what it is (I think it's more like mere contempt), as long as we don't attempt to legislate bad taste away.

de gustibus non est disputandum

Hey, take your speaking in tongues somewhere else, buddy!

Hey, you haven't seen my snake-handling yet!

I tend to define myself as something of a Goldwater Republican/libertarian (small "l") and while there are plenty of issues where I disagree with the social/religious conservatives, we also have areas of agreement. I'll just mention two closely related things that trouble me about that wing of the party.

One is a tendency by some social conservatives to define their own agenda as the "true" core values of Republicanism. (I'm sure there are plenty of people here who don't do that, so let's stipulate that I'm painting with a very broad brush.) This is the origin for a lot of those RINO cracks, which you seldom hear from other wings of the party. I could probably list my own Republican values in about six principles, but if you disagree with me on half of those I'm unlikely to try to read you out of the party. And my disagreement with George W on some major issues didn't lead me to sit on my hands during the election on the grounds that there was no difference between W and JFK2.1 on the only issues that mattered. Some spokespeople for the social conservatives imply that, unless a candidate explicitly endorses their agenda, they might do just that.

My second disagreement is with the general issue of using government as an instrument of social policy, and here I'm going to disagree with the comment Bill quoted. There's a very broadly shared standard on issues like being anti-murder, but one can't argue from that to a policy of conservative government activism any more than one can argue that law enforcement as a government service logically implies tax-funded daycare. In a healthy society, government shouldn't be the institution of first resort for defining and enforcing moral behavior. But that's an issue for the next installment in your series.

Let's make one thing clear - virtually every action taken by a legislative body is, in effect, “legislating morality.” When a group of lawmakers passes a law banning murder, they are by their very action defining a moral boundary for society and by extension, “imposing morality” on said society.

Thus, the question is not “can morality be imposed on society?”; rather the question is “who's morality will be imposed?”

--Well, yes. In Virginia, adultery is still a crime. So (more obviously) are incest and bigamy. But I disagree with what the commenter said above. The point isn't who imposes morality on whom - I'm not sure that can be done in any case. (As I recall, the Soviet Union couldn't do it.)

There are in fact two points. If competition is what we're looking for, the morality that can persuade most minds and change most behaviors will win. Forget the laws. The laws will follow. If tomorrow 90 percent of us become Puritans and want to clamp petty thiefs in the stocks, Congress will pass a law within 15 seconds allowing us to do so.

But if what we want is to expand the freedom we enjoy as Americans, the the last thing we'd do is get the police impose our arguments on the other side. Don't you agree? So the second point is that jumping from "I believe" to "get the cops" bypasses the kind of moral persuasion that, from Jefferson to Martin Luther King, has moved this country forward.

Anyway. Morality precedes law, but politics swallows up all our conversations. I have no idea why - care to speculate?

You restated the argument in my post, so of course I agree.

Bill-

You ask... "Am I advocating moral compromise?" and the answer to many is Yes. To those who believe that abortion is murder, any compromise on this issue is a moral problem.

A parallel would be if your 'compelling majority' who agree on the illegality of murder were asked to accept it in certain circumstances (for example, if the victim was young enough).

What you are advocating is more accurately described as a political compromise. While it still may pose a moral problem, many who believe that abortion = murder would be willing to accept the incremental changes to our laws that would save additional lives without an outright ban. It is not the ideal situation, but it would be better than where we are today.

tom

"Presidential ticket or no, midterms are always regarded as a referendum on the Presidency."

Yes, and that is just plain foolish. Look at the history of recent midterms and ask yourself whether in the last two (for congresscritters) or six (for senators) years an excess number got swept into office; that is when they are vulnerable. More to the point, who's vulnerable in 2006 among Senate Republicans versus Senate Democrats? If you look, they won a heck of a lot of close races in 2000; we won mostly blowouts. I look at the races up in 2006 and about the best the Democrats can hope for is to maintain the current deficit; their pickup hopes lie in Missouri (Talent's pretty safe though) and Montana (I'd say no hope). They've got some tough seats to defend in Washington, Michigan, NJ (being vacated by Corzine) and Florida. I like the odds of the Senate being more Republican after the midterms.

I am socially conservative, and agree that Roe is horrible law. It should be overturned, so that each state is able to make laws regarding abortion. If you agree that abortion should be legal, you would be free to live in a state that it was legal in, and for folks like me that don't would be able to do the same. It never should have been a federal issue. Same with gay marriage, except tax laws would need some adjusting, but still do able, I would think. At least that way, if you did not like the 'morality' in your state, you could either move, or work to change the laws, and neither side would be forced to live under the others 'judicial activism', as the control would be more local than just in DC.

I am not holding my breath on this occurring, but it is a compromise that would allow freedom of choice to both sides.

To build a winning party there must be general agreement of principles and values. If one section decrees its values are more important than any other than it risks both its position and that of the party. If this section, be it conservatives, economists, foreign policy, defense, civil liberties sections withold their support and the party wins they will be marginized, unless of course the party suffers a crippling loss.

The dims cannot coopt social conservatives, but they do woo the libertarians and social moderates. So when we look to what the base of the party is you rule out those who membership in the party is always optional. Remember Sen Jeffords.

If the social moderates and libertarians are so powerful and outweigh social conservatives I'd like to see the evidence of it.

If the social moderates and libertarians are so powerful and outweigh social conservatives I'd like to see the evidence of it.

First I'd like to see where anyone claimed that social moderates and libertarians had "more" power than social conservatives.

Care to enlighten us?

Thomas:

You are wrong on at least one account. In Pennsylvania, there is a huge block of socially conservative voters that has always been actively courted by the Dems. It is made up mostly of Catholics, lower middle class religious types, and union members. They probably tipped PA into Kerry’s hands last year.

These voters damn near did the same thing in Ohio. There are a few other mid-western and sunbelt states where the same thing could easily happen. The entire South East had a majority of socially conservative Dems 20 years ago.

Clinton understood this group very well. But it seems as if the North Eastern and North Western Dems don’t get it. If they do, the GOP had better watch out.

I'm still stuck on the quote from your earlier post:

Conservatism can't survive by religious extremism and tax cuts alone.

So now being a traditional, orthodox Christian is considered "extremism"? Because I take my worldview from the Scripture does that make me anymore "extreme" than those who take their worldviews entirely from themselves? Certainly the tag of "extreme" can't be because of any tactics on the part of the relious conservatives. As I see it, we simply fighting to maintain the platform that drew us to the Republican party in the first place. Regardless of the label others might like to place on us for the sake of argumentation, I seem to recall a time in America when our views were considered entirely normal. And last I checked, there are still a number of the so-called "red states" where "religious extremism" still thrives. Some of us don't get our views by lifting a moistened finger to the air and seeing which way the wind of public opinion blows. Some things we see (anchored in an unchanging biblical worldview) as just wrong and always so.

Many of the things we religious conservatives are so adamant about we are adamant about because we have a much LONGER view of the struggle than some others in the loose coalition of the conservative. If we consent to be a nation that tolerates the murder of children in the womb, the distortion of the family unit through same sex marriage, and the general abandonment of religiously based values from the public square, we've essentially laid the groundword for a fairly short-lived "conservative" governance that will in short order, give way to the very type of organized hell that we see in so many other nations that have no moral grounding.

The question for me and many others that I personally know is not, "How can I build the biggest majority so that our side can WIN?" but "How can I act RIGHTEOUSLY in my generation?" because, in our faith, it is by asking and acting on the latter question, that God grants the goal of dominating the culture around us.

I do agree that most often, it seems like God works generationally, at least, that's what I read in the Scripture, so a sudden spasm of "conservatism" apart from a general transformation of the whole culture is suspect to me too. But a change in the culture WON'T HAPPEN unless good men and women stand unwaveringly for what is right TODAY.

I'm still stuck on the quote from your earlier post:

Let's be clear, it's not my quote (not saying you necessarily said it was).

Extremism has a negative connotation, indeed. Perhaps devout or orthodox are better. But extremist works in some cases.

If we consent to be a nation that tolerates the murder of children in the womb, the distortion of the family unit through same sex marriage, and the general abandonment of religiously based values from the public square, we've essentially laid the groundword for a fairly short-lived "conservative" governance that will in short order, give way to the very type of organized hell that we see in so many other nations that have no moral grounding.

1. I reject your "extreme" view of these threats, as well as your characterizations.

And considering that perhaps 70-75% of your fellow Americans also reject this context, America should already be that hellhole. By your reckoning.

2. You can't force your vision of morality on others via government. Even if I wanted to counsel you on the very best way to accomplish your goals, I wouldn't tell you to adopt the rhetoric that you use. It may feel righteous, but it just alienates people and causes the majority to dislike you.

Taking a stand - that's fine - but wood breaks in a strong wind, wheat sways. It may feel good to declare yourself righteous, but if you don't know when to compromise, you'll set yourself back.

Have at it.

I notice that you have a habit of doing something and then denouncing people for the same thing, like saying they are defensive or using rhetoric. You are quite comfortable saying decisively what people should say and do without attaching to yourself the sense of being "righteous" in your confidence. I'm not saying it to be hateful or to needlessly criticize you, but as a response to your argumentation, it needs to be said because it seems to be something of a regular argument you make. I don't blame you for it; of course you do and should have decided opinions about what "ought" to be and you have every right to be "defensive" about those positions--I'm just asking for the same extension of courtesy without being branded someone who talks a good game using "rhetoric" (that's what you call the speech whose view you disagree with) just to make himself "feel good." It's not "rhetoric"; it's what I and millions of others believe.

I wouldn't tell you to adopt the rhetoric that you use. It may feel righteous, but it just alienates people and causes the majority to dislike you.

You bring up the word "righteous" earlier before I did in a pejorative sense, as if it is somehow wrong for someone to hold a view of what righteousness is and then stand for it. Your use of it seems to suggest that the person is full of pride and feels that they alone are the righteous. In sum, it suggests something like: "Well you may THINK you're ALL THAT, but the rest of us think you're insane." Why am I beholden to what everyone else thinks of my position?

I said PRECISELY in my post, and so did the the gentleman whose response you respect so much, that I don't tack with the popular wind. I'm not about the majority "liking" the position I take, per se. I hold the classic orthodox position that says the Gospel of Jesus Christ will inevitably conquer the world, "as the waters cover the seas." I don't get my positions from reading the latest opinion poll. I am a sinner like everyone else, but that doesn't mean I have to change my definition of sin so I can be with the "majority of Americans."

Like the President we currently have the pleasure of supporting, I feel bound by my conscience to stand for what is RIGHT; if that makes me anathema to the crowd, so be it. I'm a black conservative AND a Christian--I'm quite used to the alienation. It's all good; I have great company. I also have the audacity to think that people's opinions can be changed so what I may be spit on for now, may hold sway over the many during my grandchildren's lifetimes. When I was born, a sizable chunk of the American population didn't think "people like me" could drink out of the same water fountain as them. I'm glad some folks decided to "buck" the status quo in favor of what is everlastingly right. President Bush seems to be under that same impression with his position on the War on Terror--a position he has not swayed from since he undertook it and from the looks of the last election results, he seems to have benefited by it.

I'm stumped why you are crediting me with trying to "impose my morality" on the rest of the world through legislation. I thought that was well taken care of in another post not to mention my own where I said:

I do agree that most often, it seems like God works generationally, at least, that's what I read in the Scripture, so a sudden spasm of "conservatism" apart from a general transformation of the whole culture is suspect to me too.

I'm NOT trying to bring about "heaven on earth" through legislation, but if in a crowd of 1,000, a conversation is going on about what we COLLECTIVELY should do about issues of deep moral consequence, why am I plucked out of the 1,000 so that the 999 can make the decision without the "imposition" of my viewpoint? What about the imposition of the contrary view on me and my family?

I totally agree; America is fast becoming and is already much given over to being a hellhole. I couldn't agree more. Which is precisely why NOW, more than ever, is NOT the time for people of conscience and faith to step away. And for some of us, some things are just non-negotiable because they are what is TRUE. I can no more vote for a Republican or any "conservative" candidate who jettisons the Pro-Life plank in the platform than I could vote for David Duke.

It's a shame you call that rhetoric. Back in the day, it used to be called "standing up for what you believe in."

Finally, let me just put all my cards out on the table so we can see how "alienating" my position is and how out of step I am. As a Baptist from the old Reformed tradition, I hold that [in no real order]:

• Abortion is murder
  
• Marriage is sacred and only between a man and a woman
  
• Certain crimes require the death penalty
  
• Strong defense
  
• The celebration and accommodation of religion in public life--of ALL faiths--is a GOOD thing
  
• Government is an instrument in the hands of God to promote PEACE and allow for freedom of worship, not a means to extinguish it from engaging in any meaningful debate with the culture at large
  If that makes me "alienating" then I proudly wear that title.

Steve -

You are quite comfortable saying decisively what people should say and do without attaching to yourself the sense of being "righteous" in your confidence. I'm not saying it to be hateful or to needlessly criticize you, but as a response to your argumentation, it needs to be said because it seems to be something of a regular argument you make.

The difference between you and me is this: you pointedly say, "screw compromise, we don't need you," whereas I say, "compromise, you need us. And we need you." I'm counseling compromise with arrogant confidence, you are asserting immutable character in a dicussion about effective politics.

And when I stake a claim about a subjective issue, I'm fully aware that others disagree. You on the other hand:

Forced to choose, we'd rather have a nation where life is protected than where taxes are low. But we don't believe we have to make that choice.

... are simply wrong. I'm not saying that your moral stance is "wrong," as it's a perfectly legit subjective judgment. But political realities render your moral absolutism as a posturing fantasy world.

For example, at least 66-75% of your fellow Americans are "baby murderers," or tolerate "baby murder," to some extent. So when you declare these beliefs as if they are self-evident, and propose an unbending agenda for these beliefs, you are being dissonant. Hence, whether or not this is something you believe, in political terms, it IS "posturing rhetoric."

If there is anything I can state with unswerving arrogance, it's that. I'm not trashing all of your beliefs, I'm just stating that your unwillingness to recognize the inherent limitations of them is your flaw. This is very different from merely asserting that MY beliefs are somehow better because they are mine.

You bring up the word "righteous" earlier before I did in a pejorative sense, as if it is somehow wrong for someone to hold a view of what righteousness is and then stand for it. Your use of it seems to suggest that the person is full of pride and feels that they alone are the righteous. In sum, it suggests something like: "Well you may THINK you're ALL THAT, but the rest of us think you're insane." Why am I beholden to what everyone else thinks of my position?

Because you live in a Republic. A Democracy. So again, in teh context of a political discussion, you ARE beholden to what others think. It make me laugh that after all I've written, this escapes you. It's still just a pissing contest about your worldview, rather than a discussion about what compromises you (and your allies/enemies including me) need to make to maximize what you can achieve.

* Abortion is murder

Many disagree. How are you going to change this reality? Here's a hint: it's not by angrily yelling that the majority that disagrees with you are all "murderers."

* Marriage is sacred and only between a man and a woman

Most people agree with you. But I also suspect that your views are also to the right of most people on the various shades of this issue. But I'll certainly give it to you.

* Certain crimes require the death penalty

Sure, if you've got the right person.

* Strong defense

Yup. Again, most people agree.

* The celebration and accommodation of religion in public life--of ALL faiths--is a GOOD thing

Even Haitian voodoo priests? Santarians? Church of Satan? Wahabis?
ALL faiths?

Code word: what is "public life?"

= You want it in government.

* Government is an instrument in the hands of God to promote PEACE and allow for freedom of worship, not a means to extinguish it from engaging in any meaningful debate with the culture at large

Last I checked, your Freedom to Worship was as strong as ever. This point means nothing. The implied debate is over whether faith needs to be promoted by the government. The consensus is, it does not. If you don't like this, rewrite or amend the Constitution.

Once again, it's seemingly impossible for you to grasp the concept that yielding (or even moderating your tone) to some extent on certain views will achieve most of your agenda, while unbending "extremism" could inhibut ALL of your agenda. You call this "standing up for what you believe in." I'd say, given the hostility of your rhetoric from day one, it's simply the nasty inability to play well with others.

Moderates do have a position:

Leave us alone.

And unfortunate as it may seem to the majority of Republicans coalitions are ruled by their weaker members. Lose them and the other side starts winning.