politics | creno7

Reflections on the Republican Party’s Coalition and Future Direction

In our two-party system, both major parties strive to build a broad coalition of voters to carry them to victory in local, state, and national elections. The Republican Party dominated not only my hometown and state growing up but much of the surrounding region as well. While political strategists on both sides may advocate for their parties to shift further left or right, I’d like to see the Republican Party preserve the ideals I grew up with while moving more toward the center. I’m not a political scientist—this is simply a personal reflection on the GOP’s constituent base, with a few bold policy suggestions for the future.

I grew up in a western state nestled in the beautiful Rocky Mountains. The region fostered a culture of independence. We started driving at a young age—15 or 16—and with that freedom came road trips, camping excursions, and outdoor adventures, often without adult supervision. This spirit of independence also shaped our politics. The Republican Party, in particular, nurtured that mindset by championing land and gun rights.

In many western states, zoning and gun laws are notably relaxed. For example, I legally purchased my first firearm—a .45 caliber pistol—at a store called Rocky Mountain Sports and Liquor, which even featured a drive-thru window. That anecdote alone says a lot about local regulations and cultural norms.

People in the West often feel a deep connection to the land—not just as a sacred and beautiful landscape, but as privately owned terrain that must be protected from federal overreach. The GOP’s defense of private property rights, low taxes, and local control resonated strongly. Many western landowners have long contested the federal government’s control of land—often 25% to 65% of a state’s total area. In many ways, the federal government functions like a landlord, a dynamic that creates tension. The GOP built support by defending gun rights and representing the “independent” landowner against what was perceived as a bloated, intrusive federal government. Agencies like the EPA, Department of the Interior, Department of Agriculture, and ATF became convenient targets for blame—sometimes rightly so. Consider the federal overreach in cases like Ruby Ridge or Waco, Texas.

Another key pillar of the GOP base has been religious social conservatives. In my home state, this group largely comprised Evangelicals and Mormons. Evangelicals, in particular, became a cornerstone of the national Republican base, drawn by the party’s strong stances on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. This formula contributed to Republican dominance in the West and helped elect George W. Bush and his running mate, Dick Cheney of Wyoming. Bush, a born-again Christian, embodied the religious appeal, while Cheney personified western values.

The strength of the Evangelical vote was evident again in 2004. Karl Rove, Bush’s campaign strategist, made a deliberate effort to mobilize these voters—not just to the polls, but into campaign operations as volunteers. Their overwhelming support played a major role in Bush’s reelection.

Rounding out the Republican base is a pro-business, economically conservative faction—Wall Street advocates, millionaires, small business owners, and financially conscientious middle-class voters. These are the Republicans I’ve come to know while living on the East Coast. In contrast to many social conservatives, this group tends to be more socially libertarian. They may support same-sex marriage, for instance, as long as the couple pays taxes—and preferably low ones. The Bush/Cheney ticket and even Trump’s campaign appealed to these voters by emphasizing tax cuts and deregulation. Additionally, the national GOP base includes Libertarian-leaning individuals, who maintain a particularly strong presence in the West.

Now that I’ve outlined what I see as the key factions within the GOP, I believe the time has come for the party to reevaluate its platform. Moving forward, the GOP would be wise to prioritize equal rights while continuing to protect the religious freedoms of churches and other faith-based institutions. Though this may seem like a subtle shift, it would represent a bold break from recent party orthodoxy and would likely alienate part of the traditional base.

First and foremost, the GOP should stop opposing same-sex marriage and gay adoption. Instead, it should embrace a platform of equal legal rights. From an economically conservative standpoint, promoting marriage—regardless of the couple’s gender—can lead to more financially stable families. Stable families are less dependent on state assistance, and larger adoption pools mean fewer children relying on government welfare. Sociologically, the family remains the cornerstone of a stable society. If the GOP continues to champion the family unit, it should not seek to narrowly define what constitutes a family. Admittedly, this stance would be controversial among Evangelicals, but the greater challenge for socially conservative voters lies ahead: protecting their right to practice their faith freely.

The GOP already supports religious liberty and the protection of nonprofit status for faith-based institutions. The party rightly recognizes the value these organizations bring to their communities—even when they object to certain federal mandates. The party’s defense of religious freedom must remain central to its platform. Doing so will help retain the support of Evangelicals, Catholics, Mormons, and others.

Today’s pressing cultural conflict is no longer same-sex marriage or abortion—those battles are largely settled in the legal and social arenas. The current front is about the rights of religious institutions. For example, Catholic hospitals should not be forced to provide abortions or birth control if doing so violates their religious beliefs. Denying them federal funding on that basis would harm the communities they serve. Protecting their autonomy is a critical issue that resonates with a broad swath of religious voters.

Ultimately, the Republican Party should not abandon the culture war—but rather, it should redefine it. Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges are settled law. Our culture is becoming increasingly liberal, and the GOP must evolve in response. The party should remain committed to smaller government and personal liberty—liberty and equality for all. A truly small government doesn’t belong in your bedroom.

If the GOP clings to an outdated platform, it risks both political irrelevance and being remembered as a party on the wrong side of history.

Further Reading:

Note: The views expressed in this blog do not necessarily reflect my personal or religious beliefs. They are presented here as reflections on the Republican Party’s current coalition and suggestions for its political future.

Let me know if you’d like this reformatted into a blog post or visual piece for publication or social sharing.

“The culture of poverty has some universal characteristics which transcend regional, rural-urban, and even national differences…..

-Oscar Lewis, “The Culture of Poverty” in Four Horseman

The United States has always been a nation of immigrants. Consider the Irish in the 1840s, who fled starvation and, by the 1860s, welcomed the Civil War as a job opportunity—guaranteed meals and a roof over their heads. Whether it was Italians, Scandinavians, the English, or the Scottish—let’s face it, these newcomers were not “European nobility” by any stretch of the imagination. Immigrants were struggling, often impoverished.

Now, we are faced with what many are calling an “immigration crisis.” Numerous immigrants are arriving from our southern border, and they are coming for the same reasons immigrants have always come to America: opportunity.

Many are motivated by the strength of the American dollar. In several Latin American countries, U.S. dollars—primarily through remittances—account for up to 15% of national GDP (Pew Research, 2013). These immigrants actually provide a kind of weapon against inflation. The dollar has remained strong in part because of them, coinciding with a decrease in American wages as a share of total GDP (New York Times, 2013).

This economic squeeze on the blue-collar middle class—while painful—has helped restrain inflation. Immigrants contribute by sending American dollars outside our borders, effectively reducing the domestic money supply and helping preserve the value of the dollar. In turn, these same remittances become a vital source of income for neighboring countries, many of which are in desperate economic condition. So not only do these outflows help fight inflation at home, but they also act as de facto aid packages that promote regional stability—something that is absolutely in the best interest of the United States.

So yes—immigration is, without a doubt, beneficial. But…

I also understand the need to document and regulate immigration. America remains a land of opportunity, but the process to access that opportunity has become increasingly bureaucratic and inefficient (Council on Foreign Relations). We need to streamline the system for immigrants who are here primarily to work and send money home. Proper documentation would also give them a level of legal protection and allow law enforcement to better share information on their identities—though, admittedly, information sharing across government levels remains a baffling challenge, especially in this era of cloud computing and interconnected databases.

I also sympathize, in part, with the state of Arizona and its struggle to determine who holds responsibility for immigration enforcement. Federal and state roles remain poorly defined. Whether you support President Obama’s reform efforts, believe immigration falls solely under congressional authority, or champion states’ rights, one thing is clear: we would all benefit from a clarified immigration policy that simplifies and streamlines the process.

We were all immigrants once, and at some point, the system worked for our ancestors. Our current system does not. It needs fixing. Let’s rise above partisan politics and take action—but be warned: it will require compromise.