Our country is a consumerist culture predicated on the values of globalization. This ethos is toxic to the goals of traditional conservatives. Repeatedly whenever there is a policy question concerning the interests of corporations and consumers on the one hand and the interests of traditional conservatives on the other, the social conservatives are thrown under the bus (Of course, as a secular liberal I’d happily drive that bus).

However, that being said, there is a reason fusionism was a successful electoral strategy. The more partisan the US becomes the more important rhetoric becomes, even though rhetoric (as opposed to demographics and identity) has only a marginal impact on elections. That margin makes the differences.

Consequently, post-WWII the corporate wing of the Republican Party needed a rhetoric that appealed to the masses (hint: it wasn’t corporatism). I believe that one of the core components of Republican’s electoral success (at least since the 80s) was their religious appeal. It was by no means the only component–there were many other crucial elements-but the Republicans could not have won the elections that they did without it.

This is in many ways why the Republican Party has imploded. The war was the over riding factor, but on a basic structural level they lost their religious ethos. Conservative Christians no longer believe that voting Republican means voting for their religious interests (e.g. Rod Dreher, Crunchy Cons).. Now, of course, that does not mean they will suddenly start voting for the Democrats. However, if conservative Christians either start shifting to a third party or sitting out elections, where will the Republicans be? What base of support will they draw on? If the answer is small government conservatives and libertarians, then they are doomed to loose elections.

The latter prediction does seem to be being borne out to a great degree, with the caveat that it is difficult to seperate long term trends from short term trends (e.g., a general shift towards the Dems that may well be a short term result of dissatisfaction with the Bush administration).

Re Colorado, I’m a relatively new resident myself (a transplant from blue America), but one important factor in Colorado right now seems to be a disparity in the relative qualities of the two party organizations right now.

Imagine how it would look if instead of the word “Californian,” you were to substitute the word Okie or redneck or libertarian, resulting in a sentence such as “Keeping the rednecks out, while desirable, is not really practical…”

I will be interested in seeing how the electoral map changes. I think there is a very good chance the Dems lose Florida and Ohio and make it up along the Mississippi River. Admitedly the polling in Missouri doesn’t support that presently. To the larger point, a libertarian message is very unappealing when people don’t feel they have control. If a got a mortgage 5 years ago and I can’t find financing after an adjustment due to a Wall Street caused liquidity crisis – a gross oversimplification on so many levels – the first thought running through my head is not going to be the need to suffer through a temporary phenomena. For the lower white collar class, when they see their job cut and shipped to India, their first thought isn’t going to be how they are making up their loss of income with price savings at Walmart; they are thinking the next job they take may just as easily be exported. As with many things, the easy answers have been tried and left wanting in the wake of larger phenomena, something too many libertarians in their cush academic jobs don’t ever consider.