Party vs. Ideology

Since the election, the news has been dominated by talk of the impending Fiscal Cliff and the Benghazi consulate attack. In both cases, Republicans are increasingly split over how much they should cling to the Grover Norquist no tax pledge and Senator McCain's rejection of UN Ambassador Susan Rice as Secretary of State. In both cases, the Tea Party House freshmen, right wing radio hosts and Fox News maintain the need to remain ideologically pure and that attempts by Mitt Romney and others to at least appear more moderate were what cost Republicans the election. I don't see how that could have been the case when the party ran its most right wing campaign in modern history. This is not even the party of Ronald Reagan these days, much less the centrist party of Dwight Eisenhower. The right wing, embodied in the highly profitable conservative entertainment complex, sees a threat to its own relevance if compromise no longer remains a dirty word. Would you expect talkers like Laura Ingraham to urge their followers to move to the center? The GOP has a fight on their hands, and it's an internal one. Political parties were never founded to unswervingly promote ideology; they were formed to get candidates elected who were closest to representing their priorities. The primary system was focused solely on who could placate the most hardcore conservatives. That doesn't win general elections. The public wants to know what's in it for them, not the fact that you can push 100% of your agenda into law. Running almost exclusively on tearing down the opposition party's record of Obamacare etc. won't get you there either. The speed of change based on a mandate should be a caution to liberals as well. President Obama's first two years saw big accomplishments for left leaning causes, only to produce a strong reaction the other way in 2010. Mandates can be fleeting. Give a little.