Mike Pence has said as much in letters to his colleagues several times. It is the lesson of 2006 and 2008. It is time for the governing to match the rhetoric, and now people are paying more attention. The GOP will either walk the walk or it will go the way of the Whigs.
“How long do politicians have to keep on promising heaven & delivering hell before people catch on” – Thomas Sowell
I’m not the biggest fan of Eisenhower or Nixon, but they (and Reagan) are clearly preferable to this post-Reagan Republican Party. Those presidents won national majorities for a reason. They weren’t strict conservatives, but they certainly weren’t any less conservative than the Bushes, McCain, or Romney. They didn’t pretend they were going to abolish the welfare state — often, they didn’t even pretend they would cut the welfare state — unlike so many of today’s Republicans, who don’t follow through but do use their rhetoric to polarize. That gives us the worst of both worlds: big government plus the delusional sense within one party that it represents the antithesis of big government and may freely hate other Americans who don’t mouth the mantra. And what goes for big government goes for Judeo-Christian values, a strong national defense, and all the rest: the GOP’s rhetoric occupies a separate mental compartment from its actions, even as its voters and ideological apologists continue to believe that there is a profound moral difference between them and the rest of the country. It’s a losing strategy, and worse, it’s made the country ungovernable even as government grows.
Political Arena 
Daniel, thanks for a great post. Unfortunately too many in the media, as well as bloggers and readers are too focused on getting the best zinger in than finding common ground. Polarizing comments do nothing but push the sides apart further and certainly don’t do anything to capture those voters in the middle – which is just what we need to do in this election. Nice job!
Daniel, thanks for the response and an opportunity to reply. There is no doubting the fact that one party, one candidate must win and one must lose. The middle ground isn’t necessarily the parties or party lines, but rather the voters in this case. I do not believe that the voting public is so clearly polarized at the extremes. People are complex. You can have someone who believes strongly in abortion, is against drilling in national parks, and is open to raising taxes; but is a hawk on military matters, a fiscal conservative, Pro gun and wants better control of immigration. It happens.
I think there is a group of people in that middle ground that believe in a meritocracy and want their children to have a shot at the American dream, and don’t believe in an entitlement society. How many families have a registered Democrat and a registered Republican? I am sure there in some middle ground happening there.
And yes, without a doubt the Democratic Platform conveyed at the convention demonstrated the extremes you mention. I believe the Republican’s offer a different, more optimistic choice.
Daniel, I agree with all of what you have written, except for the size of the middle ground with respect to the people that can make a difference in this election – the voters. Believing there is no middle ground is a slippery slope. Once you believe that, then there is no reason to “reach across the aisle” and instead, focus on “winning the argument” or getting in the best jab; something we see all too often today. Then we have lost.
Thanks again for the great post and thought provoking response. I will check back in for other posts as well, and look forward to being inspired.