Many have advanced the theory that the people of the Middle East are subject to following the strong horse. The strong horse is a leader, who even though he may be a tyrant, is nonetheless supported by his countrymen because he is seen as having conviction. He is the one who is perceived to have the power to remain in power by repelling any who would challenge him.
The strong horse theory does not only apply to the Middle East, but is in full bloom in our republic. Unfortunately the strong horse theory is understood by Democrats, but not by Republicans. It is why the former has been winning more and more elections and consolidating power in their party, and the latter has been standing in their own failure dumbfounded as to what has happened. Democrats are seen as having convictions that the Republicans do not counter as much as they try to claim as their own.
Democrats in recent years have been radicalized by Marxist ideas, and they are seen as committed to those ideas even though they are not based in values that most Americans hold dear. The Republicans, in an effort to appeal to Democrat voters, have not been as vigorous in advancing their values, therefore Democrats are seen as the strong horse and Republicans are seen as the track on which they run. One of the core tenets of being a strong horse is being passionately committed to your ideas, which the Republicans have abandon in favor of "being liked."
The dilution of the Republican message is expressed by the "Big Tent" moniker. One can hear moderates in leadership roles in the Republican Party and in talk radio advocate for the "Big Tent" almost on a daily basis. But a tent that is too big and inclusive perplexes those that enter who are not sure if inside the tent is a bible-thumping revival or a whore house. And if the "Big Tent" was the pathway to electoral victory, why is there never any mention of it on the Democrat side of the aisle.
Additionally, the Republican Party has bought into the notion of one being a fiscal conservative and a social Leftist, completely ignoring the fact that these two concepts are mutually exclusive. Fiscal conservatism leads to conservative social values, and conservative social values will likewise lead to fiscal conservatism. The two concepts are inextricably linked at the hip. For example, one who says he is fiscally conservative, but believes in gay marriage, is living in denial. The redefinition of marriage away from the traditional model that has been the cornerstone of stable society since the dawn of man, will necessarily lead to broken families and more dependence on government. And government dependence equals fiscal policy that is anything but conservative.
If Republicans are to ever have any hope of winning elections and regaining the control of the federal government, they must be seen as the strong horse. Instead of constantly being fearful of offending moderates with a passionate defense of core values, they must embrace those values and articulate why they are superior to the culture of dependence that Democrats have created. Otherwise they will forever be seen as a weaker version of Democrats, and given the choice, the American people will most likely always choose the strong horse on the track over the lame one in the stable.