I remember watching the 2011-2012 Republican presidential primaries and predicting every single major event before it happened while the talking heads on abcnnbcbs/fox took everything as a surprise and made no correct predictions (that I saw) about the major events. I don't believe the media outlets are trying to obscure things; they really are confused by it, but in spite of that arcane complexity of the Republican/conservative electorate that the media portrays, I believe that over 90% of the American right can be defined easily and accurately by just four parts. This can be used to explain both voters and campaigners. Of course, there can be complications over whether a politician believes in his own rhomney, uh, rhetoric, but this would explain what a politician needs to say to win votes. Naturally, the four ideologies overlap, creating 13 groups altogether. Just 13 groups from four ideologies. I have included a Venn diagram -- though it is still a work in progress:
In order to find monikers for the groups, I have used some terms here in a more general or a more specific usage than normal. War Hawks here are those who support a strong and active military at home and abroad (e.g. national defense, preemptive strikes, nation building). The Religious Right are those who support traditional American values (e.g. pro life, traditional marriage, English language). I use "Libertarians" here not of the non-aggression principle per se, but of those who want to limit or reduce the size and scope of government. Partisans are those whose main objective is to win elections -- even if it means giving up on some principles. Among the politicians, they are what some call "electable," and others call "RINOs" (Republican In Name Only). Among the voters, they are those who look for electability in a candidate as the primary quality or at least an important quality.
Note the diagram is positive not negative. Thus while Moderate Conservatives are the intersection of War Hawks, Partisans, and Libertarians but NOT the Religious Right, they do not necessarily all oppose traditional American values (even in a candidate). They just don't actively campaign for those values.
I have not found names for two of the groups: the War Hawk/Religious Right/Partisan(but not Libertarian) intersection, and the Religious Right/Libertarian/Partisan(but not War Hawk) intersection. Please share your thoughts if you can think of good titles for those groups, or any other title changes or other improvements. Copyright © 2013 David S. Robinson. Any part of this work may be transmitted, reprinted, or otherwise used in any form, so long as 1) I am clearly identified as the author, and 2) a link or URL to this site is included.
In order to find monikers for the groups, I have used some terms here in a more general or a more specific usage than normal. War Hawks here are those who support a strong and active military at home and abroad (e.g. national defense, preemptive strikes, nation building). The Religious Right are those who support traditional American values (e.g. pro life, traditional marriage, English language). I use "Libertarians" here not of the non-aggression principle per se, but of those who want to limit or reduce the size and scope of government. Partisans are those whose main objective is to win elections -- even if it means giving up on some principles. Among the politicians, they are what some call "electable," and others call "RINOs" (Republican In Name Only). Among the voters, they are those who look for electability in a candidate as the primary quality or at least an important quality.
Note the diagram is positive not negative. Thus while Moderate Conservatives are the intersection of War Hawks, Partisans, and Libertarians but NOT the Religious Right, they do not necessarily all oppose traditional American values (even in a candidate). They just don't actively campaign for those values.
I have not found names for two of the groups: the War Hawk/Religious Right/Partisan(but not Libertarian) intersection, and the Religious Right/Libertarian/Partisan(but not War Hawk) intersection. Please share your thoughts if you can think of good titles for those groups, or any other title changes or other improvements. Copyright © 2013 David S. Robinson. Any part of this work may be transmitted, reprinted, or otherwise used in any form, so long as 1) I am clearly identified as the author, and 2) a link or URL to this site is included.
