[rayiner]

Independents are all over the map ideologically: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-moderate-middle-is-...

People over-estimate the degree to which our political parties represent an inherently consistent set of policy ideas. For example, social liberalism and being pro-immigration are intertwined in the US. But the socially liberal women prime ministers of Denmark and New Zealand are also anti-immigration. About 1 in 6 Democrats believe abortion should nearly always be illegal. African Americans, who overwhelmingly vote Democrat, have a similar split to Republicans when it comes to same-sex marriage and whether belief in God is a necessary prerequisite to morality.

The political parties are a compromise amongst groups of people with heterodox views. They’re not something that ideologically must be bundled together.

[tptacek]

That's probably more true of the Democratic party, which is in fact a coalition of several large and somewhat disparate blocks (in particular, the black vote, which strategically prefers the concentrated vote over the most ideologically representative one --- Ismail White's book on this is pretty interesting). I don't think there are comparable forces in the Republican party --- though there were before the "ideological sort".

[rayiner]

Thanks for the book recommendation! Within the Republican Party, there is less in the way of groups with diametrically opposed views. But Republicans also have fairly heterodox positions on individual issues. The party contains nearly everyone that has a broad view of the second amendment, but a third want stricter gun laws. The party contains nearly everyone that wants to overturn Roe but the majority do not. Republicans contain nearly all the super anti-tax people, but half want to raise taxes on those making above $10 million. About half of republicans support same sex marriage (while 1:6 Democrats oppose it).

In terms of larger ideology, a schism is brewing between social conservatives, nationalists, and pro-business conservatives, with Trumpism versus anti-Trumpism cutting across all those groups. (As you recall, while Republicans supported him, most wanted someone else in the primaries initially.) The differences are less extreme than in the Democratic Party—where you have Marxists and 2/3 of Wall Street under the same tent—but they divisions are growing.

[JAlexoid]

Both parties are mostly groups of "single issue voters".

How do you think a gay man is able to talk at RNC and them having "gay cure" support in their platform? Because when you put all of the different positions in one document - they tend to contradict the majority's views. (Outright ban on abortion is supported only by a third of republicans! SSM ban is also supported by a third.)

Independents are more liberal on the topic of abortion than democrats...

[xyzzyz]

There are at least two significant and distinct forces in the Republican Party: pro-business and free enterprise people, and (mostly religious) social conservatives. You can find more if you look carefully — by no means Republican Party is a monolith.

[tptacek]

Yes, there are two different kinds of white people that constitute the majority of the Republican party.

(I'm not trying to be overly snarky here.)

[xyzzyz]

Sorry, what do you mean? In the comment above, you said “I don't think there are comparable forces in the Republican party”, and now you admit that there are. I am very confused by what you are trying to convey.

[tptacek]

The two factions you're referring to are not meaningfully opposed. That's not true of the Democratic labor, black, urban liberal and latino coalition.

[rayiner]

They’re not at odds in the same way as Democratic subgroups, but they are meaningfully in conflict and the divisions are growing bigger. Social conservatives, in general, would be willing to give a lot more on economic/regulatory issues, in order to make meaningful progress on social issues. Indeed, many chafe are the restrictions of a small-government platform that limits government power to shape society. Pro-business conservatives, by contrast, are wedded to limited government. And they see social conservative positions as a liability in a modern corporate climate. (Issues like immigration, abortion, and same-sex marriage are why many Wall Street types have switched to the Democratic Party in recent years.)

I saw a remarkable illustration of this at a conservative event where a panel was discussing Bostock before the case was decided. The room was evenly divided, but with very strong opinions on both sides. There is a seed of a real conflict there. Textualism isn’t a robust foundation for the kind of broad structural changes social conservatives want. You need the conservative counterparts to liberal judges, who seek to vindicate broader principles gleaned from the law (except here to conservative ends).

[gbrown]

That's part of why I think "centrist" just isn't a very useful label.