[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).