The modern Republican Party can essentially be divided into several factions: social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, defense conservatives, paleoconservatives and libertarians (more at Wikipedia).  While not nearly as clear-cut as examples we have seen in lecture, this sort of arrangement naturally lends itself to conceptualizing by the network model.  To understand the nodes (party subgroups) and edges (relationships among subgroups), an explanation of the different wings and the issues they hold dear is necessary.

Social Conservatives

The social conservatives tend to focus on issues of morality according to their (predominantly Protestant and Evangelical, but also Mormon, Catholic and Orthodox Jewish) religious beliefs, and support legislation proscribing certain practices (e.g. abortion, gay marriage, physician-assisted suicide). They generally have a negative view of illegal immigration, but this is certainly not universal. On matters of the economy and foreign affairs, they tend to support the official Republican platform, even while some segments of the group are aligned with paleoconservatives. The Republicans largely have Lyndon. B. Johnson and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to thank for this reliable constituency.

Fiscal Conservatives

This faction wields a great deal of influence over the general platform of the party, probably more than any other group save the social conservatives.  Even so, liberal immigration reforms championed by this wing for the economic benefits they would result in suffered a humiliating defeat by other conservative groups.

The fiscal conservatives advocate a smaller government, and especially one that adheres to a laissez-faire economic policy. Most support the abolition of the estate tax and reductions in income, capital gains and corporate tax rates. The rather immoderate increase of the national debt during the past six years of Republican control of government has been an especially sore spot, as this debt has implications for the global flow of capital and the management of monetary policy.

Defense Conservatives

The defense conservatives lobby for a strong military, global force presence and national defense system. Most members support foreign interventions, pre-emptive and otherwise.  For occasionally backing expansions in scope of some aspects of the government and for hawkishness of military matters, they are at intermittently at odds with the libertarian conservatives. Though often referred to as neoconservatives, the neoconservatives are more a fusion of defense and fiscal conservatives. An argument could be made for the inclusion of neoconservatives as a distinct branch of the party, however, their representation among the general population is quite small compared to representation at higher levels of government and in the editorials section.

The defense conservatives frequently share a significant overlap on issues with the social conservatives, and paleoconservatives to a lesser extent (primarily on the issue of immigration).

Paleoconservatives

Probably the group most at odds with the party as a whole, the paleoconservatives argue for a noninterventionist foreign policy, strictly closed borders and a protectionist economic policy. While customarily regarded as anti-authoritarian, they are staunch campaigners for government involvement in the mandatory maintenance of what they regard as traditional (Christian) family values. Longtime standard-bearer Pat Buchanan has recurrently voiced his exasperation with the Republican Party, and has run as a third-party presidential candidate a few times.

Altogether Now

There are currently numerous digressions from the “big tent” platform of the Republican Party, such that at least a few points of contention can be seen among each camp.  Libertarians are alarmed by what they see as an erosion of civil liberties as a result of the ongoing “War on Terror.”  Fiscal conservatives are disappointed by accumulation of national debt and the immense cost of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Religious conservatives are dismayed by the apparent lack of action on Roe vs. Wade.  Paleoconservatives, by and large, would welcome a withdrawal from Iraq and were horrified to see the leader of the Republican Party campaign for liberal (open-border, in their view) immigration reforms.

Defense conservatives are broadly the most pleased of the major branches, seeing preemptive war in Iraq and the dramatic increases in domestic security funding as positive developments. But for each of the situations they regard positively, at least one other faction has the opposite opinion.  Clearly, there is latent tension within the party, which presents an opportunity for Democrats that they have made little headway in exploiting.

The 2006 election cycle saw libertarian conservatives and some elements of the fiscal conservatives gravitate toward the Democratic Party, historically the bearers of “big government.”  Even the bedrock was not spared erosion, as small but consequential numbers of social conservatives jumped party lines and contributed to nail-biter elections of conservative Democrats in states throughout much of the country, such as Pennsylvania, Virginia and Montana.

The Future of the Party Coalition

The 2008 election cycle promises to be even more interesting.  Republicans seem all-but-certain to nominate John McCain; trades at prediction market InTrade indicate a consensus probability well over 90%. While he seems, on the whole, to have solid conservative credentials, he has at time conflicted with almost every wing of the party. He angered anti-immigration conservatives with his support for the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, libertarians for his coauthorship of the allegedly free-speech-resricting McCain-Feingold Act (a campaign finance reform bill), fiscal conservatives for his refusal to fully commit to no new taxes, paleoconservatives for backing free trade agreements and defense conservatives for his uncompromising positions on interrogation techniques such as waterboarding. Though he has long since lost the nomination, Mike Huckabee’s dogged and continuing presence on the political scene hints at a nascent protectionist/isolationist undercurrent taking hold in the party. This is a horrifying prospect to the upper echelons of leadership, who rely heavily on fiscal conservatives and would like to see Hispanics subsumed into the party base.

Some elements of the party will continue to be attracted to Democratic candidates, especially the libertarian and fiscal conservative wings. While media observers have suggested that a schism or collapse will take place (see here) and these blocs will caucus with Democrats, this seems unlikely in 2008 as both Democratic candidates have not been making compelling overtures to either group.

Taken together, these events hint at the possibility of a party realignment taking place in coming years, similar in scale to the appearance of Ronald Reagan’s Reagan Democrats of the 1980s or the Dixiecrat to Southern Republican transition of the 1950s and 60s, both of which contributed to Republican political dominance since 1945. For some time this network will balance, but as new issues create new divisions within and among constituencies, the network must again be rearranged.