Well, I think a better way to consider it is what are the core values that the party should stand for, and then the folks who associate with them will flow from that.
As a conservative, I tend to believe that when choosing between liberty and equality, I will lean towards liberty. But this isn’t a binary decision. It’s a pragmatic choice that should be made to maximize utility.
I think that an important thing to bear in mind, that is often ignored, is that the ultimate goal of everyone is (or SHOULD be) to help people. It’s just a matter of how you go about doing it. A good example of this is helping the poor. The best way to help the poor is to grow the economy. Not simply growing stock prices and crap, but to honestly grow the economy, and create more jobs, and increase wages. This will, in my honest belief, help the poor more than any direct government program could ever hope. It also tends to increase revenues that can then be used to pay for the other things that the government spends money on.
So, to that end, I would perhaps be more willing to make decisions that would superficially be seen as “benefiting business”. This, of course, could always be taken to an extreme degree where those policy decisions are poorly targeted. But I believe that doing things that benefit business cannot simply be discounted as “trickle down economics” as is too often the case.
The problems tend to come about when folks abandon detailed, reasoned analysis in favor of dogmatic ideological heuristics. Like when folks say that they are for/against “government spending”. If someone is for or against something as vague as government spending, then they are an idiot… because to think that is to think that it doesn’t matter what you are spending your money on, which is clearly absurd.
This is actually why I like Kasich, because he clearly does think about things on that lower level of detail which is required for real policy making. I certainly don’t agree with him on many things, like his socially conservative positions, but I believe that the most important elements at this point in time are really the economic things, because economic growth makes everyone happier, and that in itself helps relieve some of the stress that’s been building that results in social problems.
This general approach of preferring rationality to dogmatic ideology applies to most of those groups you listed. For things like religion, I believe that having religious values is perfectly acceptable, as long as they are not forced upon others. I do not believe that it is unacceptable for people to display their religious beliefs in the public space, as long as it does not cross the line into discrimination. But I don’t want to be associated with the religious zealots who abandon all rationality in favor of their faith, or who treat people poorly and use their religion as an excuse to do so. As I’ve pointed out, while I’m not a Christian, I believe that the actual tenets of the Christian faith are ultimately good, and beneficial to society, so I have no problem with them.
My approach to most of this stuff, I believe, is appealing to most people. People want economic prosperity and freedom. I think the ultimate goals are universal, folks just may disagree about the details of how to achieve them.
But I am in no way interested in appealing to those who would embrace fascism, racism, or xenophobia. I do not want to pander to those who desire to prop themselves up through oppression of others.
