The melding of social conservatism with traditional fiscal and political (as in, the role of government) conservatism has always seemed to me to be a somewhat forced marriage. There is little inherent in political conservatism that requires social conservatism. Just look at the Libertarians, really. The fusion worked in the sixties because it brought together people who were appalled by the social and cultural transformations of the era, those who were worried about the growth of federal power through things like civil rights legislation, the war on poverty, and affirmative action, and those who were alarmed by the transformations of accelerating globalization. Each group could tolerate the others because they were all trying to hold back the tide in some way.
But the tide won, and I wonder now if that alliance isn’t done. The fiscal conservatives aren’t going to back off of global trade or neoliberal economics; they’ve doubled down on that and are making money hand over fist. That in turn means an acceptance of globalization and a rejection of protectionism. The folks who want more limited government have realized that the social conservative agenda actually requires more government intervention, more government control, than the let it all hang out approach. And the social conservatives, seeing all of this, are having trouble convincing the other groups that there’s any benefit other than local election turnout to embracing social stances the majority of the nation rejects.
This election, the bizarre hatred for Clinton has unified these groups to some extent, but that won’t last I think. Eventually the money people on the right are going to follow the money, and if Clinton’s presidency continues the prosperity that Obama left in his wake, I suspect there will be little incentive for the financial elite to rock the boat. The policy wonks on the right will be more disgruntled, but given the inherent moderate tendencies of Clinton I doubt there’ll be that much to get outraged over, and as the states have shown themselves to be batshit crazy when let off the leash, they won’t find much national support for a traditional states-rights approach. The social conservatives will continue to be outraged, but they’ll be so outraged they’ll continue to attract and keep the racists, misogynists, and xenophobes as well as the Moral Majority types, and they will become increasingly cut off from the rest of the country, which is I think about ready to accept that same sex marriage, women in power, gender fluidity, and racial diversity are just part of modern life.
tl;dr the GOP needs to figure out what it stands for. It started as opposition to the Democratic machine that, through power consolidated by slave agriculture, retarded industry and commerce and perpetuated an archaic social order. It transformed in the late 19th and early 20th century into the party of industry, commerce, and finance, and small government in general, but really didn’t spend any time poking its noses into people’s bedrooms. The sixties created a unique point in time where Coolidge Republicans could find common cause with former Southern Democrats, but that alliance seems archaic at this point.