1)getting greener (already underway in some parts), CO2 emissions, cheap oil is gone forever. time to deal. etc
2)getting browner (less hostile to immigration, or perceived as such. A must, to capture the future - the Hispanic vote.)
3)getting science-ier - the hostility to evolution, to stem cell research. Again Cheap oil and R&D. The Future is here.
4)getting more socially tolerant (ie homosexuals). Society seems to be lightening up. The GOP isn’t.

On all 4 of these, the GOP seems to be resolutely looking backwards while society is marching past them.

To me, the strangest part of conservatism has always been their knee-jerk hostility to science. The scientific community weighed in on evolution a century ago. It is almost impossible to take conservatives seriously when they pontificate about media bias when they can’t admit their own biases against seeing the natural world.

I suppose the homosexuality issue can’t be discussed - conservatives today are in the death-grip of Evangelicals and one can’t reason at all with their views on revealed scripture. Best to move on.

The GOP to me seems so backwards, it’s sad. Reagan this or that. The politics of exclusion (immigration outrage, no gays, please) and ignorance (liberty fries, abstinence only, evolution as bridge to abortion and homosexuality). And the whining: Librul media! librul media!

The problem with Dems is their complete and utter lack of vision. They have nothing to excite voters with, nothing at all. They didn’t expect the surge to work, albeit in its specific context. We will still be there for a decade or more. Worse, they are hopeless cowards, spineless.

But this last point is why the Republicans can limp along, ignoring any of the first 4 points: because the Dems have nothing at all, no program and no resolve to carry it out.

My point is I guess I see Yglesias as basically right. Douthat really doesn’t give an argument why the right of center won’t hold. Just that the coalition isn’t necessarily bound together. Well, okay. But I don’t think the other factions have the numbers to really challenge the three legs of the stool yet. Which competing philosophies have the numbers right now to challenge the big three? Federalists? Hah! Libertarians? Didn’t you on this very site say that small gov’t was dead?!

My own view would be that Yglesias is likely right. Romney gets the nod, and even if he loses, there is no hand wringing or revolution because Republicans can filibuster and stymie and slow it all down, and we can’t really leave Iraq anyway, and a Dem Pres can’t look weak on foreign policy either.

I don’t believe that there will be a Dem president and a strong Dem controlled Congress. Having seen what they have done thus far, they are so pathetic, it’s hard to believe they’d do anything with nerve anyway. Far, far too timid.

It’ll happen in fits and starts, but there won’t be some seismic event. The GOP needs the Southern Christians, so they won’t alienate the social cons, and the Wall Street Cons simply have too much clout and $ (who else can afford a $100 million candidacy!?), and the hawks are too ’serious.’ Cons LOVE toughness, witness Kristol’s impervious career despite abject failure in the predictions dept.

Over time, the Repubs will incorporate a little energy independence, they’ll have to - when oil is past $150 a barrel and shows no sign of settling; and the data keeps coming in on climate trends, and people just like better medical research and treatment . I just can’t see how conservatives win these battles. Business cons will be for these things, and the hawks will be in favor of a more prosperous US. But the social cons - their ideological dead weight has to start shifting. They’re the ones really draggin the GOP down, keeping them in the past.

Lastly, the hatred of Hillary is so wide and deep - the center will certainly hold, if only to stab at her. She alone can hold the Republican heavens up on her shoulders for four more years, maybe eight, if Reagan can’t. Don’t deny it.

Most of our history the parties have not followed rigid right/left comprehensive ideologies. The GOP in particular has shared some values with an emerging conservative movement, but has not always been closely mapped to conservatism. The Democrats have had their liberal periods with FDR and LBJ but often had uneasy coexistence with disparate elements of its coalition.

Really what you are seeing is the trailing off of a conservative-based Reagan era, based largely on Goldwater’s true believers. The GOP may return to a different type of coalition after some time in the wilderness.

Of the three legs of the stool, it is hard to dispute that the Social Conservatives have most outworn their welcome and pushed their advantages beyond the point of marginal utility to the general public. American society is evolving in ways not consistent with the Socons’ vision.

It’s often hard to remember that much of the American public goes about living their lives, not concentrating on partisan or ideological issues. They either don’t care about a comprehensive framework for understanding politics and governance or are brutally utilitarian in their choices.

Win or lose in November, I think only Thompson’s nomination could hold together the remnants of the GOP’s Reagan coalition. Any other candidate will result in a faster split. Whether a faster resolution is in the best interests of the party and the country is debatable.

America needs two healthy and competitive parties, and this cycle it looks like the weaknesses are greater on the Republican side. But this too shall change.